[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160922223411.GA17222@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:34:11 -0300
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: add tcp_add_backlog()
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> +bool tcp_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + u32 limit = sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf;
^^^
...
> + if (!skb->data_len)
> + skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_end_offset(skb));
> +
> + if (unlikely(sk_add_backlog(sk, skb, limit))) {
...
> - } else if (unlikely(sk_add_backlog(sk, skb,
> - sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf))) {
^---- [1]
> - bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> - __NET_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_TCPBACKLOGDROP);
> + } else if (tcp_add_backlog(sk, skb)) {
Hi Eric, after this patch, do you think we still need to add sk_sndbuf
as a stretching factor to the backlog here?
It was added by [1] and it was justified that the (s)ack packets were
just too big for the rx buf size. Maybe this new patch alone is enough
already, as such packets will have a very small truesize then.
Marcelo
[1] da882c1f2eca ("tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for TCP")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists