tree b2c5343ad610fe113425a3663f0dc3ddb478911b
parent e7937772d7a2b0127cc4cbc67bc594e139fdaf63
author Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> 1220506219 +0200
committer Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk> 1220507138 +0200

dccp: Refine the wait-for-ccid mechanism

This extends the existing wait-for-ccid routine so that it may be used with
different types of CCID. It further addresses the problems listed below.

The code looks if the write queue is non-empty and grants the TX CCID up to
`timeout' jiffies to drain the queue. It will instead purge that queue if
 * the delay suggested by the CCID exceeds the time budget;
 * a socket error occurred while waiting for the CCID;
 * there is a signal pending (eg. annoyed user pressed Control-C);
 * the CCID does not support delays (we don't know how long it will take).


                 D e t a i l s  [can be removed]
                 -------------------------------
DCCP's sending mechanism functions a bit like non-blocking I/O: dccp_sendmsg()
will enqueue up to net.dccp.default.tx_qlen packets (default=5), without waiting
for them to be released to the network.

Rate-based CCIDs, such as CCID3/4, can impose sending delays of up to maximally
64 seconds (t_mbi in RFC 3448). Hence the write queue may still contain packets
when the application closes. Since the write queue is congestion-controlled by
the CCID, draining the queue is also under control of the CCID.

There are several problems that needed to be addressed:
 1) The queue-drain mechanism only works with rate-based CCIDs. If CCID2 for
    example has a full TX queue and becomes network-limited just as the
    application wants to close, then waiting for CCID2 to become unblocked could
    lead to an indefinite  delay (i.e., application "hangs").
 2) Since each TX CCID in turn uses a feedback mechanism, there may be changes
    in its sending policy while the queue is being drained. This can lead to
    further delays during which the application will not be able to terminate.
 3) The minimum wait time for CCID3/4 can be expected to be the queue length
    times the current inter-packet delay. For example if tx_qlen=100 and a delay
    of 15 ms is used for each packet, then the application would have to wait
    for a minimum of 1.5 seconds before being allowed to exit.
 4) There is no way for the user/application to control this behaviour. It would
    be good to use the timeout argument of dccp_close() as an upper bound. Then
    the maximum time that an application is willing to wait for its CCIDs to can
    be set via the SO_LINGER option.

These problems are addressed by giving the CCID a grace period of up to the
`timeout' value.

The wait-for-ccid function is, as before, used when the application 
 (a) has read all the data in its receive buffer and
 (b) if SO_LINGER was set with a non-zero linger time, or
 (c) the socket is either in the OPEN (active close) or in the PASSIVE_CLOSEREQ
     state (client application closes after receiving CloseReq).

In addition, there is a catch-all case by calling __skb_queue_purge() after 
waiting for the CCID. This is necessary since the write queue may still have
data when
 (a) the host has been passively-closed,
 (b) abnormal termination (unread data, zero linger time),
 (c) wait-for-ccid could not finish within the given time limit.

Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>