[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EAEE487.5080905@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:10:15 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] tcp: Export TCP Delayed ACK parameters to user
Whether tracked as bytes or segments, my take is that to ask
applications to have to think about another non-portable socket option
is ungood. I would suggest taking the time to work-out the automagic
heuristic to drop the deferred ACK count on connections where it being
large is un-desirable and then not need to worry about the limits being
global.
Given the stack's existing propensity to try to decide when to increase
the window I might even go so far as to suggest the sense of the
heuristic be flipped and it seek to decide when it is ok to increase the
number of segments/bytes per ACK. To what extent one needs to go beyond
what happens already with the stretching of ACKs via GRO/LRO or if that
mechanism can serve as part of the logic of the heuristic is probably a
fertile area for discussion.
If I recall correctly, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned
something about a 20% performance boost. What were the specific
conditions of that testing? Was it over a setup where the receiver
already had LRO/GRO or was it over a more plain receiver NIC without
that functionality?
rick jones
--
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