| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch |
| From: | Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:16:41 +0300 |
| Cc: | Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=ms2.inr.ac.ru; b=MptRSHTvitUXWaxAXqHBhz2AgtHSZFWzsuy9QQxSuu/8dc9souMXyvzCwPIuOQXoG6CAo64InksrJzYabPFQX6bY03fgnRNBw+P7rujOdhPUvrMQnWpv5JIBkkoHdUpQhEJIHk3iJGFIbvgTMhkQVCQY7iV2rlSClgNn5gQE3JU=; |
| In-reply-to: | <20050211170740.2608419b.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <0525M9211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050211150420.74737b2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050211170740.2608419b.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6i |
Hello! > This set of data frames you quoted are all full, and > are tightly interspaced. It looks exactly like a TSO > frame, which we certainly set PSH on, but the TSO > engine is dropping it aparently. > > I guess this is e1000. Any e1000 internals experts reading > here who can comment on how e1000's TSO engine treats the > PSH flag? Or it was two one-segment frames. Before blaming on e1000 it would be easier to confirm that linux never worked with MacOS X, except for those kernels which had congestion avoidance mostly supppressed. I.e. let's disable TSO in 2.6.9 and look. Alexey |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC] batched tc to improve change throughput, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |