On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 11:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko > <oleksa...@natalenko.name> wrote: > > On úterý 20. února 2018 20:39:49 CET Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > I am not trying to compare BBR and Reno on a lossless link. > > > > > > Reno is running as fast as possible and will win when bufferbloat is > > > not an issue. > > > > > > If bufferbloat is not an issue, simply use Reno and be happy ;) > > > > > > My patch helps BBR only, I thought it was obvious ;) > > > > Umm, yes, and my point was rather something like "the speed on a lossless > > link > > while using BBR with and without this patch is the same". Sorry for a > > confusion. I guess, the key word here is "lossless". > > That is with the other patches _not_ applied ? > > Here the gain is quite big, since BBR can setup a slightly better > cwnd, allowing proper GRO on receiver.
Also you can tune your NIC to accept few MSS per GSO/TSO packet ip link set dev eth0 gso_max_segs 2 So even if TSO/GSO is there, BBR should not use sk->sk_gso_max_segs to size its bursts, since burt sizes are also impacting GRO on the receiver.
