On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:37:48PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:56:46 -0800
>
> > Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
> > to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
> >
> > 1) Most TCP developments are done
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:56:46 -0800
> Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
> to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
>
> 1) Most TCP developments are done with TSO in mind.
> 2) Less high-resolution timers needs to be armed for TC
Hi.
On středa 21. února 2018 0:21:37 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
> My latest patch (fixing BBR underestimation of cwnd)
> was meant for net tree, on a NIC where SG/TSO/GSO) are disabled.
>
> ( ie when sk->sk_gso_max_segs is not set to 'infinite' )
>
> It is packet scheduler independent really.
>
>
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:45 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> On úterý 20. února 2018 21:09:37 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 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_g
On úterý 20. února 2018 21:09:37 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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 Tue, 2018-02-20 at 11:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko
> 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 an
On úterý 20. února 2018 20:56:24 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
> That is with the other patches _not_ applied ?
Yes, other patches are not applied. It is v4.15.4 + this patch only + BBR +
fq_codel or pfifo_fast. Shall I re-test it on the net-next with the whole
patchset (because it is not applied clea
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko
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
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 B
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On úterý 20. února 2018 19:57:42 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Actually timer drifts are not horrible (at least on my lab hosts)
>>
>> But BBR has a pessimistic way to sense the burst size, as it is tied to
>> TSO/GSO being there.
Hi.
On úterý 20. února 2018 19:57:42 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Actually timer drifts are not horrible (at least on my lab hosts)
>
> But BBR has a pessimistic way to sense the burst size, as it is tied to
> TSO/GSO being there.
>
> Following patch helps a lot.
Not really, at least if applied to
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 07:39 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 10:32 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > 19.02.2018 20:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
> > > to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 10:32 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 19.02.2018 20:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
> > to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
> >
> > 1) Most TCP developments are done with TSO in min
Hi.
19.02.2018 20:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
1) Most TCP developments are done with TSO in mind.
2) Less high-resolution timers needs to be armed for TCP-pacing
3) GSO can bene
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
> to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
> 1) Most TCP developments are done with TSO in mind.
> 2) Less high-resolution timers needs to be armed for TCP-pacing
Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
1) Most TCP developments are done with TSO in mind.
2) Less high-resolution timers needs to be armed for TCP-pacing
3) GSO can benefit of xmit_more hint
4) Receiver GRO is more
16 matches
Mail list logo
