[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FFD9F18.6030401@candelatech.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:43:20 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ycheng@...gle.com,
dave.taht@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net, therbert@...gle.com,
mattmathis@...gle.com, nanditad@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com,
andrewmcgr@...il.com, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] tcp: TCP Small Queues
On 07/11/2012 08:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 08:16 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>> I haven't read your patch in detail, but I was wondering if this feature
>> would cause trouble for applications that are servicing many sockets at once
>> and so might take several ms between handling each individual socket.
>>
>
> Well, this patch has no impact for such applications. In fact their
> send()/write() will return to userland faster than before (for very
> large send())
Maybe I'm just confused. Is your patch just mucking with
the queues below the tcp xmit queues? From the patch description
I was thinking you were somehow directly limiting the TCP xmit
queues...
If you are just draining the tcp xmit queues on a new/faster
trigger, then I see no problem with that, and no need for
a per-socket control.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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