[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45E89437.3000902@psc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:16:39 -0500
From: John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: alexandre.sidorenko@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SWS for rcvbuf < MTU
David Miller wrote:
> From: Alex Sidorenko <alexandre.sidorenko@...com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:21:58 -0500
>
>> they told us that they use small rcvbuf to throttle bandwidth for this
>> application. I explained it would be better to use TC for this purpose. They
>> agreed and will probably redesign their application in the future, but they
>> cannot do it right now. For the same reason they have to use the old 2.4.20
>> for a while - in big companies the important production software cannot be
>> changed quickly.
>>
>> The fix I suggested is trivial and should have no impact the case of
>> rcvfbuf>mtu, so I think it makes sense to include it in upstream kernel.
>
> I have no objection to the fix, especially John's version.
>
> I was just curious about the app, thanks for the info :)
Please don't apply the patch I sent. I've been thinking about this a
bit harder, and it may not fix this particular problem. (Hard to say
without knowing exactly what it is.) As the comment above
__tcp_select_window() states, we do not do full receive-side SWS
avoidance because of header prediction.
Alex, you're right I missed that special zero-window case. I'm still
not quite sure I'm completely happy with this patch. I'd like to think
about this a little bit harder...
Thanks,
-John
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists