netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bad TSO performance in 2.6.9-rc2-BK

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bad TSO performance in 2.6.9-rc2-BK
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:39:22 -0700
Cc: ak@xxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx, jheffner@xxxxxxx, andy.grover@xxxxxxxxx, anton@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040930054738.GA12667@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0409291648560.3434-100000@dexter.psc.edu> <415B24C0.2020208@us.ibm.com> <20040929145050.71afa1ac.davem@davemloft.net> <20040929215613.GC26714@wotan.suse.de> <20040929162923.796d142e.davem@davemloft.net> <20040930000515.GA10496@gondor.apana.org.au> <20040929213310.40f5f33a.davem@davemloft.net> <20040930054738.GA12667@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:47:38 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 09:33:10PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > @@ -2413,7 +2410,7 @@
> >                                                     packets_acked);
> >                     if (sacked & TCPCB_URG) {
> >                             if (tp->urg_mode &&
> > -                               !before(scb->seq, tp->snd_up))
> > +                               !before(orig_seq, tp->snd_up))
> >                                     tp->urg_mode = 0;
> 
> That looks like a typo.  We should check against the new starting
> sequence number, not the original.  We should also change the !before
> to after since the original check applied to end_seq.

I agree about the first part, but the second I do not.

The new 'seq' is equivalent to what end_seq would be of the
TSO sub-packet.  Therefore the correct test type would be
!before(seq, tp->snd_up), right?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>