[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iK1tTWqXmYZq67drQrJAwxA3UvKscbCpeJhB1hm-k5gmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:56:24 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] tcp: remove non GSO code
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko
<oleksandr@...alenko.name> wrote:
> On úterý 20. února 2018 20:39:49 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> I am not trying to compare BBR and Reno on a lossless link.
>>
>> Reno is running as fast as possible and will win when bufferbloat is
>> not an issue.
>>
>> If bufferbloat is not an issue, simply use Reno and be happy ;)
>>
>> My patch helps BBR only, I thought it was obvious ;)
>
> Umm, yes, and my point was rather something like "the speed on a lossless link
> while using BBR with and without this patch is the same". Sorry for a
> confusion. I guess, the key word here is "lossless".
That is with the other patches _not_ applied ?
Here the gain is quite big, since BBR can setup a slightly better
cwnd, allowing proper GRO on receiver.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists