[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKS03PKbT0Acvnn87g5pd8LmaoJQs3zjmByB2zrndENkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:48:40 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, rt@...utronix.de,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel
>
> To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size
> by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level from
> 1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that
> 1ms granularity and 99% of those timers are canceled before expiry.
>
Ah... This might be a problem for people using small TCP RTO timers in
datacenters (order of 5 ms)
(and small delay ack timers as well, in the order of 4 ms)
TCP/pacing uses high resolution timer in sch_fq.c so no problem there.
If we arm a timer for 5 ms, what are the exact consequences ?
I fear we might trigger lot more of spurious retransmits.
Or maybe I should read the patch series. I'll take some time today.
Thanks !
Powered by blists - more mailing lists