| To: | Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:41:32 -0800 |
| Cc: | shemminger@xxxxxxxx, hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050212141641.GA27456@yakov.inr.ac.ru> |
| References: | <0525M9211@server5.heliogroup.fr> <20050211150420.74737b2e@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050211170740.2608419b.davem@davemloft.net> <20050212141641.GA27456@yakov.inr.ac.ru> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:16:41 +0300 Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. ... > Or it was two one-segment frames. Even ignoring my TSO changes, we should be seeing at a minimum 1/2 window PSH settings which we're not as far as I can tell. (this is due to the forced_push() test in net/ipv4/tcp.c) This also points out a bug in my TSO PSH patch, I should be updating tp->pushed_seq shouldn't I? Question is, what to set it to? I think correct value is TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq. > I.e. let's disable TSO in 2.6.9 and look. I believe this experiment had been performed already. Stephen, isn't that the case? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Leonid Grossman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |