On Mon, 2006-07-08 at 19:04 +0200, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > > I'll give you an example.
Thanks - that matches my understanding. > A TCP flow sends X data and later waits for a response, host is now quietly > waiting. Assume fdesc >= tx_ring->prunet, so we dont free any skbs, right? > I am hoping they will be freed by a tx interrupt that will force poll to happen. Or a new packet arrival etc. Just like before. Why do you see the two as different? (the tx path pruning is still going on as i noted before). If all you are looking for is a scheme to quickly free the skbs so that TCP doesnt get charged, I am not sure if this is the right one. > Now assume that some part of X data gets lost, our retransmit timer hits and > we want to retransmit but our socket is charged with too much data sitting on > the nics tx-ring, so we don't send anything. By orphaning, those skbs won't > charge the socket and the flow can retransmit. I understand that as well as the dilemma that TCP not being charged for skbs (if you decide to orphan) it holds in its retransmit queue ;-> Which is not a problem unless that queueu grows to be a huge one ;-> cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
