[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVM-fhQJX+EFNoFSnuVAjqfRM7OjzbQML7H+tMEjxG7Rug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:37:29 +0800
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: TCP transmit performance regression
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:22 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> Kernel stack size is 8KB or more, so could you find process creation failure
>> in your ChromeBooks machine at the same time?
>
> I believe you mix a lot of things.
>
> Have you ever heard of sockets limits ?
>
> All available ram on a machine is not for whoever wants it, thanks God.
>
> No : TCP stack was dropping frames, because of socket limits.
>
> Only because skbs were fat (8KB allocated/truesize, for a single 1500
> bytes frame)
Could you explain why the truesize of SKB is 8KB for single
1500bytes frame?
I observed it is 2560bytes for RX SKBs inside asix_rx_fixup with
rx_urb_size of 2048 on beagle-xm.
>
> If application is fast and read skb as soon as the arrive, no problem is
> detected.
>
> But if application is slow, or a TCP packet is lost on network,
> man packets are queued into ofo queue. And eventually not enough room is
> avalable -> we drop incoming frames, and sender has to restransmit them.
>
> So instead of loading your web pages as fast as possible, you have to
> wait for retransmits.
>
> So you see nothing at all, no kernel logs, no failed memory attempts.
>
> Only its slower than necessary
>
>
>
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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