[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1423147722.31870.65.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:48:42 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
eyalpe@....mellanox.co.il
Subject: Re: Throughput regression with `tcp: refine TSO autosizing`
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:44 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote:
> I do get your point. But 1.5ms is really tough on Wi-Fi.
>
> Just look at this:
>
> ; ping 192.168.1.2 -c 3
> PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.83 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.02 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.98 ms
Thats a different point.
I dont care about rtt but TX completions. (usually much much lower than
rtt)
I can have a 4 usec delay from the moment a NIC submits a packet to the
wire and I get TX completion IRQ, free the packet.
Yet the pong reply can come 100 ms later.
It does not mean the 4 usec delay is a problem.
--
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