| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Super TSO v3 |
| From: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 24 May 2005 10:32:08 +1000 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050523.121943.78708600.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050523.121943.78708600.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:19:43PM +0000, David S. Miller wrote: > > The guts of the logic is in tcp_tso_should_defer(). And > when dealing with a TSO frame, tcp_write_xmit() calls > this instead of tcp_nagle_test(). So you can view this > deferral as a sort of "TSO Nagle". Should we skip this step if the socket has Nagle turned off? Also why are we doing this check in tcp_push_one? The only way we can get there is if the TSO goal has been reached or there is out-of-band stuff to send. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] : bug fix in multipath drr code., Herbert Xu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 0/6] bnx2: Misc fixes, Michael Chan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Super TSO v3, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Super TSO v3, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |