[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712211127460.31652@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:28:37 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>
Subject: Re: TSO trimming question
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Bill Fink wrote:
>
> > If so it seems like a lot of unnecessary
> > work just to avoid a 1 in 4 billion event, since it's my understanding
> > that the whole tcp_tso_should_defer function is just an optimization
> > and not a criticality to the proper functioning of TCP, especially
> > considering it hasn't even been executing at all up to now.
>
> It would still be good to not return 1 in that case we didn't flag the
> deferral, how about adding one additional tick (+comment) in the zero
> case making tso_deferred == 0 again unambiguously defined, e.g.:
>
> tp->tso_deferred = min_t(u32, jiffies, 1);
Blah, max_t of course :-).
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists