[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810290125300.7092@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:00:16 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: shemminger@...tta.com, doug.leith@...m.ie,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: FYI - TCP/IP thin stream latency
I'll post this rexmit combining again along with the other
tcp changes... Commenting your concerns below.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, David Miller wrote:
> Small error:
>
> > +static int tcp_can_collapse(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +{
> > + if (tcp_skb_pcount(skb) > 1)
> > + return 0;
> > + /* Once recombining for SACK completes this check could be made
> > + * less strict by reusing those parts.
> > + */
> > + if (skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags != 0)
> > + return 0;
> > + if (skb_cloned(skb))
> > + return 0;
> > + if (skb == tcp_send_head(sk))
> > + return 0;
> > + /* Some heurestics for collapsing over SACK'd could be invented */
> > + if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->sacked & TCPCB_SACKED_ACKED)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + return 1;
> > +}
>
> For the "skb === tcp_send_head()" test, we're not interested if
> "skb" is equal, but rather whether next_skb is equal.
But that's what's actually happening... We'll terminate the loop
at that skb where it matches without doing any useful work for it,
so I'm just using a different way of "saying" the same as you.
> But the structure looks fine and when you send me a tested version
> of this patch I'll apply it to net-next-2.6, thanks!
Tested along with the other recombining things posting in couple of
minutes.
--
i.
--
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