[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEnQRZB4sGP=6-Z_8G3P-BVo+wE_tbCdFUnTEgADd11XXBa6xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:07:57 +0300
From: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP_MAXSEG option with TSO enabled
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 04:33 AM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am using TCP_MAXSEG option on an interface which has TSO enabled.
>>
>> strace output for connection looks as follows:
>>
>> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 26
>> setsockopt(26, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
>> setsockopt(26, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [1], 4) = 0
>> setsockopt(26, SOL_TCP, TCP_MAXSEG, [300], 4) = 0
>> connect(26, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(1935),
>> sin_addr=inet_addr("10.10.0.1")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now
>> in progress)
>>
>> I can see that MSS (300) is advertised in SYN packet, anyhow capturing
>> the traffic
>> I notice that are some TCP segments with length greater than MSS.
>>
>> Is this normal taking in consideration that TSO is enabled?
>
>
> I would think so. What do the netstat stats suggest for segments and bytes
> per segment when you are running your test? You could always look for an
> on-the-wire packet trace.
>
> Not sure that a trace on a receiver would give you that though - the inbound
> promiscuous tap may be above GRO (and almost certainly will be above LRO)
Thanks Rick. Indeed on-the-wire capture looks fine. I have TSO enabled
at sender and LRO at receiver, everything makes sense now.
thanks,
Daniel.
--
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