[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d2f75e6-0161-aa25-e362-ad7267ee2251@hpe.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:17:31 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Van Jacobson <vanj@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 16/16] tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control
On 09/19/2016 02:10 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
>
>> Looks good, but could I suggest a simple optimization.
>> All these parameters are immutable in the version of BBR you are submitting.
>> Why not make the values const? And eliminate the always true long-term bw estimate
>> variable?
>>
>
> We could do that.
>
> We used to have variables (aka module params) while BBR was cooking in
> our kernels ;)
Are there better than epsilon odds of someone perhaps wanting to poke
those values as it gets exposure beyond Google?
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
Powered by blists - more mailing lists