[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140513.000530.154961879638643331.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:05:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jon.maloy@...csson.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
erik.hugne@...csson.com, ying.xue@...driver.com, maloy@...jonn.com,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] tipc: decrease connection flow control
window
From: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:13:22 -0400
> Memory overhead when allocating big buffers for data transfer may
> be quite significant. E.g., truesize of a 64 KB buffer turns out
> to be 132 KB, 2 x the requested size.
>
> This invalidates the "worst case" calculation we have been
> using to determine the default socket receive buffer limit,
> which is based on the assumption that 1024x64KB = 67MB buffers
> may be queued up on a socket.
>
> Since TIPC connections cannot survive hitting the buffer limit,
> we have to compensate for this overhead.
>
> We do that in this commit by dividing the fix connection flow
> control window from 1024 (2*512) messages to 512 (2*256). Since
> older version nodes send out acks at 512 message intervals,
> compatibility with such nodes is guaranteed, although performance
> may be non-optimal in such cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
So all I have to do is open 64 sockets to make TIPC commit to 4GB
of ram at once?
I really think you need to rethink this, the socket limits are
there for a reason.
--
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