RE: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for TCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 09:44 +0100, David Laight wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:01 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > Hmmm... why don't we just acknowledge reality and special case ACKs?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes why not.
> > 
> > 
> > > If a TCP packet is dataless we should just let it go 
> > > through no matter what and with no limits.
> > >  It is by definition transient and will not
> > > get queued up into the socket past this backlog stage.
> > > 
> > 
> > Even being transient we need a limit. Without copybreak, an 
> > ACK can cost 2048+256 bytes.
> > 
> > In my 10Gbit tests (standard netperf using 16K buffers), I've seen
> > backlogs of 300 ACK packets...
> What about forcing a copybreak for acks when above the rx buffer size?
> That way you avoid the cost of the copy in teh normal case when
> the data will be freed, but avoid the memory overhead when a lot
> of acks (or rx data) is queued.

Thats noise, as the minimal truesize of an ACK packet is 512 + 256 on

The fact that ixgbe provides 1024 + 256 could be fixed in the driver,
its a 4 lines change actually. Then you already have a minimal skb.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Linux Kernel Discussion]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Bluetooth Networking]     [Linux Networking Users]     [VLAN]     [Git]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Assembly]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Singles Social Networking]     [Yosemite Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux Security]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Free Dating]

Add to Google Powered by Linux