On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:23 AM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > > From: Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:09:02 -0700 > > > Previously TCP initial receive buffer is ~87KB by default and > > the initial receive window is ~29KB (20 MSS). This patch changes > > the two numbers to 128KB and ~64KB (rounding down to the multiples > > of MSS) respectively. The patch also simplifies the calculations s.t. > > the two numbers are directly controlled by sysctl tcp_rmem[1]: > > > > 1) Initial receiver buffer budget (sk_rcvbuf): while this should > > be configured via sysctl tcp_rmem[1], previously tcp_fixup_rcvbuf() > > always override and set a larger size when a new connection > > establishes. > > > > 2) Initial receive window in SYN: previously it is set to 20 > > packets if MSS <= 1460. The number 20 was based on the initial > > congestion window of 10: the receiver needs twice amount to > > avoid being limited by the receive window upon out-of-order > > delivery in the first window burst. But since this only > > applies if the receiving MSS <= 1460, connection using large MTU > > (e.g. to utilize receiver zero-copy) may be limited by the > > receive window. > > > > This patch also lowers the initial bytes expected to receive in > > the receiver buffer autotuning algorithm - otherwise the receiver > > may take two to three rounds to increase the buffer to the > > appropriate level (2x sender congestion window). > > > > With this patch TCP memory configuration is more straight-forward and > > more properly sized to modern high-speed networks by default. Several > > popular stacks have been announcing 64KB rwin in SYNs as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei...@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> > > Reviewed-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soh...@google.com> > > Applied, thanks.
Hi David: thanks for taking this patch - I didn't notice this earlier but it seems patch v1 was applied instead of v2? should I submit a v2-v1-diff patch?
