[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1490190462.16816.144.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 06:47:42 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "TCP: eth0: Driver has suspect GRO implementation, TCP
performance may be compromised." message with "ethtool -K eth0 gro off"
On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 16:27 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> This warning is a hint, and can not assume senders are not dumb.
>
> Agreed. But we can make it consider such cases. What about the following
> patch? (untested)
>
> I think we can directly account for the size of the timestamps in there,
> as that won't make a difference to congestion control in case it's
> wrong, and also validate against MTU if we have it. I didn't subtract
> the headers from MTU on purpose, as dealing with ipv4/ipv6 there is
> not worth for the same reason.
>
> This should silent this false-positive.
Note that the problem could have its origin on a middle box,
not on the host terminating the TCP flow.
So we can try hard, but we can't eliminate false positives.
Maybe replace the 12 by MAX_TCP_OPTION_SPACE ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists