On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 23:07 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> This adds a cost to fast path. tcp_sendmsg() is insane.
>
> We have one skb granularity (64KB) already for SO_SNDBUF, regardless of
> TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT being used or not.
Note that this granularity is wanted for performance, otherwise our
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 01:20 -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
> Eric
>
> A team here was using the TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT socket option and noticed that
> more unsent data than they were expecting was sitting in the write queue. I
> took a look and noticed that while we don't allow allocation of new skbs once
>
