[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305634823.2850.90.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:20:23 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc: Benoit Sigoure <tsunanet@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Expose the initial RTO via a new sysctl.
Le mardi 17 mai 2011 à 13:02 +0200, Hagen Paul Pfeifer a écrit :
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:07:57 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > I wont discuss if introducing a new sysctl is welcomed, only on patch
> > issues. I believe some work in IETF is done to reduce the 3sec value to
> > 1sec anyway.
>
> Why not?
Just because I let this point to David and others. I personally dont
care that much.
> I though all new knobs in this area should be done on a per route
> metric so it can be controlled on a per path basis. RTO should be
> adjustable on a per path basis, because it depends on the path.
>
Adding many knobs to each clone had a huge cost on previous kernels.
(Think some machines have millions entries in IP route cache), this used
quite a lot of memory.
With latest David work, we'll consume less ram, because we can now share
settings, instead of copying them on each dst entry.
> Some months back [1] I posted a patch to enable/disable TCP quick ack
> mode, which has nothing to do with network paths, just with a local server
> policy. But David rejected the patch with the argument that I should use a
> per path knob (this is a little bit inapprehensible for me, but David has
> the last word).
Well, if nobody speaks after David, he has the last word indeed.
BTW, I remember Stephen actually asked the per route thing, not David.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/8/23/6283641
Then David also stated it :
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/8/23/6283678
If you really want tcp_quickack thing you really should do it as
requested by both Stephen & David ;)
Unfortunately, I dont know if its really needed or worthwhile.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists