| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: TSO prevents cwnd growth on 2.6 kernels |
| From: | "Scott M. Ferris" <sferris@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:34:59 -0600 |
| Cc: | "Scott M. Ferris" <sferris@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050325104000.713229be.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <20050325181804.GA11633@visi.com> <20050325104000.713229be.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:40:00AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > We know it's busted. I haven't gotten to fixing this stuff > up yet. Perhaps TSO should default to off for all drivers then? I hadn't even noticed it was enabled until after I was debugging the problem. > Are you suggesting to let it go past tp->snd_cwnd? We can't > ever do that. tp->snd_cwnd is a hard limit on the number > of frames we may have outstanding on the network at one time, > TSO or not. No, I think we all agree that exceeding cwnd is a bad idea. I'm just saying that failing to reach cwnd is also broken, especially if it results in tcp_write_xmit() sending nothing at all when cwnd is small. -- Scott M. Ferris, sferris@xxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TSO prevents cwnd growth on 2.6 kernels, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TSO prevents cwnd growth on 2.6 kernels, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TSO prevents cwnd growth on 2.6 kernels, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |