| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Current 2.6.x TSO state |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:15:34 -0700 |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jheffner@xxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041001200102.GB23046@wotan.suse.de> |
| References: | <20040930213221.06a3f5b3.davem@davemloft.net> <20041001121123.19511403.ak@suse.de> <20041001124733.1ac4266a.davem@davemloft.net> <20041001195146.GA23046@wotan.suse.de> <20041001125643.30c6830f.davem@davemloft.net> <20041001200102.GB23046@wotan.suse.de> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 22:01:02 +0200 Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > As mentioned, the TCP receive buffer auto-tuning takes care > > of all of this in 2.6.6 and later. It's just 2.6.5 doesn't > > have John Heffner's auto-tuning code which is why your test > > case is so stuck in the mud. > > > > Also, the stretch ACK's are quite normal. If the receiver can't > > advertize a larger window, we won't spit out an ACK until > > the ack timeout. > > Ok, but why is the TSO case still slower? It isn't for me. With the auto-tuning code present at the receiver, at least in my case, the TSO case runs more quickly since my sender is PCI bandwidth limited since the tg3 sits on a 32mhz/33bit PCI bus. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Current 2.6.x TSO state, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Current 2.6.x TSO state, John Heffner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Current 2.6.x TSO state, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Current 2.6.x TSO state, John Heffner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |