netdev - RE: [RFC net-next] tcp: allow larger TSO to be built under overload

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <652afb8e99a34afc86bd4d850c1338e5@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:07:57 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Eric Dumazet' <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next] tcp: allow larger TSO to be built under overload

From: Eric Dumazet
> Sent: 08 March 2022 03:50
...
>         /* Goal is to send at least one packet per ms,
>          * not one big TSO packet every 100 ms.
>          * This preserves ACK clocking and is consistent
>          * with tcp_tso_should_defer() heuristic.
>          */
> -       segs = max_t(u32, bytes / mss_now, min_tso_segs);
> -
> -       return segs;
> +       return max_t(u32, bytes / mss_now, min_tso_segs);
>  }

Which is the common side of that max_t() ?
If it is mon_tso_segs it might be worth avoiding the
divide by coding as:

	return bytes > mss_now * min_tso_segs ? bytes / mss_now : min_tso_segs;

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)