On 7/11/2019 11:15 PM, Prout, Andrew - LLSC - MITLL wrote:
> I in no way intended to imply that I had confirmed the small SO_SNDBUF was a
> prerequisite to our problem. With my synthetic test, I was looking for a
> concise reproducer and trying things to > stress the system.
I&#x
On 7/10/19 3:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 7/10/19 8:53 PM, Prout, Andrew - LLSC - MITLL wrote:
>>
>> Our initial rollout was v4.14.130, but I reproduced it with v4.14.132 as
>> well, reliably for the samba test and once (not reliably) with synthetic
>> test I was
On 7/10/19 2:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 7/10/19 8:23 PM, Prout, Andrew - LLSC - MITLL wrote:
>> On 6/17/19 8:19 PM, Christoph Paasch wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, this does the trick for my packetdrill-test.
>>>
>>> I wonder, is there a way we could end up
On 6/17/19 8:19 PM, Christoph Paasch wrote:
>
> Yes, this does the trick for my packetdrill-test.
>
> I wonder, is there a way we could end up in a situation where we can't
> retransmit anymore?
> For example, sk_wmem_queued has grown so much that the new test fails.
> Then, if we legitimately ne
