[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712201417470.11007@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:35:19 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: TSO trimming question
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:40:51 +0200 (EET)
>
> > That's not the only case, IMHO if there's odd boundary due to
> > snd_una+snd_wnd - skb->seq limit (done in tcp_window_allows()), we don't
> > consider it as odd but break the skb at arbitary point resulting
> > two small segments to the network, and what's worse, when the later skb
> > resulting from the first split is matching skb->len < limit check as well
> > causing an unnecessary small skb to be created for nagle purpose too,
> > solving it fully requires some thought in case the mss_now != mss_cache
> > even if non-odd boundaries are honored in the middle of skb.
>
> In the most ideal sense, tcp_window_allows() should probably
> be changed to only return MSS multiples.
That's what Herbert suggested already, I'll send a patch later
on... :-)
> Unfortunately this would add an expensive modulo operation,
> however I think it would elimiate this problem case.
Yes. Should we still call tcp_minshall_update() if split in the middle of
wq results in smaller than MSS tail (occurs only if mss_now != mss_cache)?
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists