[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710081415020.31129@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:20:47 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: TAKANO Ryousei <takano@...-inc.co.jp>
cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, y-kodama@...t.go.jp
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] TCP: skip processing cached SACK blocks
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, TAKANO Ryousei wrote:
> From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, TAKANO Ryousei wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -1083,6 +1104,9 @@ tcp_sacktag_write_queue(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *ack_skb, u32 prior_snd_
> > > int fack_count;
> > > int dup_sack = (found_dup_sack && (i == first_sack_index));
> > >
> > > + if (sack_block_skip[i])
> > > + continue;
> >
> > By doing this skipping here, you actually end up crippling lost_retrans
> > detection even more than it was broken before. ...You probably didn't just
> > notice that during tests because of unrelated suboptimal behavior (in
> > fastpath_skb_hint handling). ...Anyway, correctness of this should be
> > evaluated against the fixed lost_retrans, rather than the already
> > broken one.
>
> You can find the result that the average goodput slightly improves
> against the only PATCH #1 (fixed lost_retrans) applied kernel.
...Yeah, sorry, I was mistaken when the slow-path is taken and when it's
not, thought that the old (current) fastpath_skb_hint code was more
intelligent than it currently is... :-) That continue should not be
a problem.
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists