On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
>> of us guessed what he was trying to get at. That's what I was
>> comp
On 04/15/2015 07:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Do not expect me to fight bufferbloat alone. Be part of the challenge,
> instead of trying to get back to proven bad solutions.
I tried that. I wrote a description of what I thought the situation
was, so that you could correct me if my understanding w
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, David Laight wrote:
> ISTM that you are changing the wrong knob.
> You need to change something that affects the global amount of pending tx
> data,
> not the amount that can be buffered by a single connection.
Well it seems like the problem is that the global a
On 04/16/2015 10:20 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> So mid term, it would be much more beneficial if you attempt fix the
> underlying driver issues that actually cause high tx completion delays,
> instead of reintroducing bufferbloat. So that we all can move forward
> and not backwards in time.
Yes,
On 04/15/2015 07:19 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 19:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should stop wasting all of our time and just tell us what
>> you're thinking.
>
> I think you make me wasting my time.
>
> I already gave
On 04/15/2015 06:52 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:41 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> So you'd be OK with a patch like this? (With perhaps a better changelog?)
>>
>> -George
>>
>> ---
>> TSQ: Raise default static TSQ limit
>
On 04/15/2015 06:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 04/15/2015 05:38 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> My thoughts that instead of these long talks you should guys read the
>>> code :
>>>
>
On 04/15/2015 05:38 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> My thoughts that instead of these long talks you should guys read the
> code :
>
> /* TCP Small Queues :
> * Control number of packets in qdisc/devices to two packets
> / or ~1 ms.
> * This allows for
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Malcolm Crossley
wrote:
>>
>> But the main concern here is it basically breaks back pressure.
>>
>> And you do not want this, unless there is no other choice.
>>
>
> virtio_net already use's skb_orphan() in it's transmit path. It seems
> only fair that other virtua
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 11:56 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Is the problem perhaps that netback/netfront delays TX completion?
>> Would it be better to see if that can be addressed properly, so that
>> the origi
10 matches
Mail list logo
