[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CBC86C4@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:18:20 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "'bro.devel+kernel@...il.com'" <bro.devel+kernel@...il.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
CC: Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Alexey Kuznetsov" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Tom Herbert" <tom@...bertland.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Daniel Lee <Longinus00@...il.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Carsten Griwodz <griff@...ula.no>,
Pål Halvorsen <paalh@...ula.no>,
Jonas Markussen <jonassm@....uio.no>,
Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>,
Kenneth Klette Jonassen <kennetkl@....uio.no>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC net-next 2/2] tcp: Add Redundant Data Bundling (RDB)
From: Bendik Rønning Opstad
> Sent: 29 October 2015 22:54
...
> > > > The semantics of the tp->nonagle bits are already a bit complex. My
> > > > sense is that having a setsockopt of TCP_RDB transparently modify the
> > > > nagle behavior is going to add more extra complexity and unanticipated
> > > > behavior than is warranted given the slight possible gain in
> > > > convenience to the app writer. What about a model where the
> > > > application user just needs to remember to call
> > > > setsockopt(TCP_NODELAY) if they want the TCP_RDB behavior to be
> > > > sensible? I see your nice tests at
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/bendikro/packetdrill/commit/9916b6c53e33dd04329d29b
> > > > 7d8baf703b2c2ac1b> >
> > > > are already doing that. And my sense is that likewise most
> > > > well-engineered "thin stream" apps will already be using
> > > > setsockopt(TCP_NODELAY). Is that workable?
>
> This is definitely workable. I agree that it may not be an ideal solution to
> have TCP_RDB disable Nagle, however, it would be useful with a way to easily
> enable RDB and disable Nagle.
If enabling RDB disables Nagle, then what happens when you turn RDB back off?
David
--
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