[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335213446.5205.65.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:37:26 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, therbert@...gle.com,
ncardwell@...gle.com, maze@...gle.com, ycheng@...gle.com,
ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive
for TCP
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:01 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> Hmmm... why don't we just acknowledge reality and special case ACKs?
>
Yes why not.
> If a TCP packet is dataless we should just let it go through no matter
> what and with no limits. It is by definition transient and will not
> get queued up into the socket past this backlog stage.
>
Even being transient we need a limit. Without copybreak, an ACK can cost
2048+256 bytes.
In my 10Gbit tests (standard netperf using 16K buffers), I've seen
backlogs of 300 ACK packets...
> This proposed patch allows non-dataless packets to eat more space in
> the backlog, thus the concern and slight pushback. And from another
> perspective, having the stack process data packets which will just
> get dropped when we try to attach it to the receive queue is just
> wasted work.
We could try to coalesce ACKs before backlogging them. I'll work on
this.
Thanks
--
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