Re: [PATCH v2 mptcp-next 7/7] mptcp: implemented OoO queue pruning

Matthieu Baerts <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.mptcp
Organization NGI0 Core
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Geliang, Paolo,

On 08/08/2026 04:31, Geliang Tang wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-08-06 at 18:46 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> On 06/08/2026 18:42, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> On 8/6/26 4:45 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>> When moving incoming skbs in the msk receive queue and the latter
>>>> is above limits, prune it as needed quite alike what TCP is doing
>>>> at the subflow level. The main difference relies in the stop
>>>> condition:
>>>> since MPTCP does not perform collapsing, it's better off dropping
>>>> the
>>>> bare minimum to fit the (newer) incoming packet.

(...)

>>>> +/* The stack can't drop packets for fallback socket at the msk
>>>> level, or the
>>>> + * stream will break.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static bool mptcp_can_ingest(const struct sock *sk)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return unlikely(sk_rmem_alloc_get(sk) <= READ_ONCE(sk-
>>>>> sk_rcvbuf)) ||
>>>> +			__mptcp_check_fallback(mptcp_sk(sk));
>>> The above should obviously be: 'likely(...)'
>>>
>>> @Matttbe: please LMK if you prefer a repost or you could adjust
>>> that
>>> while applying to the export branch.
>> No problem, I can adjust them when applying them (if there are no
>> other
>> big modifications required, but I guess no).
> 
> It seems you forgot to update this on the export branch.

Arf, indeed I did, my bad... good catch!

I just fixed it in our tree (and the alignment of the next line), but I
will wait for Paolo's feedback to know if he judges that a new version
is needed for upstream, or if that can be done in follow-up patches.

Maybe only the comments on the last patch actually requires
modifications? (but maybe can be done in a follow-up patch?)

https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260807-net-next-mptcp-oooq-pruning-v3-0-dbc1eb853cc3%40kernel.org

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.