[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335233611.5205.90.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:13:31 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_try_coalesce
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 21:13 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > commit c8628155ece3 (tcp: reduce out_of_order memory use) took care of
> > coalescing tcp segments provided by legacy devices (linear skbs)
> >
> > We extend this idea to fragged skbs, as their truesize can be heavy.
> >
> > ixgbe for example uses 256+1024+PAGE_SIZE/2 = 3328 bytes per segment.
> >
> > Use this coalescing strategy for receive queue too.
> >
> > This contributes to reduce number of tcp collapses, at minimal cost, and
> > reduces memory overhead and packets drops.
>
> The mechanics look solid, but I'm a little concerned about the
> potential added overhead for the new case where tcp_try_coalesce()
> does a skb_copy_bits() for in-order data that it is coalescing at the
> end of the sk_receive_queue. Do you have any performance numbers for
> this case to help suggest whether this added copy is a concern?
>
> neal
This never happens on connections where performance matters : skb head
can only contains one full mss segment.
This part is only used on wifi devices, where skb head is really fat.
--
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