[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1353880892.26346.300.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:01:32 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
Dave Täht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
"Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atm: br2684: Fix excessive queue bloat
On Sun, 2012-11-25 at 22:43 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:01:32AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > There's really no excuse for an additional wmem_default of buffering
> > between the netdev queue and the ATM device. Two packets (one in-flight,
> > and one ready to send) ought to be fine. It's not as if it should take
> > long to get another from the netdev queue when we need it.
> >
> > If necessary we can make the queue space configurable later, but I don't
> > think it's likely to be necessary.
>
> Maybe some high-speed devices will require larger queue, especially for
> smaller packets, but 2 packet queue should be sufficient in almost all cases.
Yeah. This is fairly much the same conversation I ended up having when I
did the same for PPPoATM.
Some day *perhaps* we might look at doing something adaptive, so it'll
detect a TX underrun and increase the amount of buffering. But this
seems perfectly good for now.
> Maybe this magic "2" and the comment should be moved to some #define.
Doesn't make it any less magic. I'm happier with it as it is, with a
clear comment describing why it's done that way.
--
dwmw2
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6171 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists