On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:36:32AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 11:09 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:42:51AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:45 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aye. In that cas
From: Eric Dumazet
> Sent: 23 September 2016 15:37
> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 11:09 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:42:51AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:45 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aye. In that case, what abou
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 11:09 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:42:51AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:45 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> >
> > > Aye. In that case, what about using tail instead of end?
> >
> >
> > What do you mean
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:42:51AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:45 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>
> > Aye. In that case, what about using tail instead of end?
>
>
> What do you mean exactly ?
Something like:
-skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_end_offset(skb));
+
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:45 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Aye. In that case, what about using tail instead of end?
What do you mean exactly ?
> Because
> accounting for something that we have to tweak the limits to accept is
> like adding a constant to both sides of the equation.
> B
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:21:30PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:34 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > +bool tcp_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 limit = sk->sk_r
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:34 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > +bool tcp_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +{
> > + u32 limit = sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf;
> ^^^
> ...
>
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> +bool tcp_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + u32 limit = sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf;
^^^
...
> + if (!skb->data_len)
> + skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_e
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:22:37PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 15:51 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_end_offset(skb));
> >
> > Shouldn't __pskb_pull_tail() already fix this? As it seems the expected
> > behavior and it would hav
On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 15:51 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_end_offset(skb));
>
> Shouldn't __pskb_pull_tail() already fix this? As it seems the expected
> behavior and it would have a more global effect then. For drivers not
> using copybreak, that's
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> When TCP operates in lossy environments (between 1 and 10 % packet
> losses), many SACK blocks can be exchanged, and I noticed we could
> drop them on busy senders, if these SACK blocks have to be queued
> into
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 09:13 -0700, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Eric Dumazet
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> > > + /* Only socket owner can try to collapse/prune rx queues
> > > +* to reduce memory overhead,
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 07:37:54 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> When TCP operates in lossy environments (between 1 and 10 % packet
> losses), many SACK blocks can be exchanged, and I noticed we could
> drop them on busy senders, if these SACK blocks have to be queued
> into th
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> When TCP operates in lossy environments (between 1 and 10 % packet
> losses), many SACK blocks can be exchanged, and I noticed we could
> drop them on busy senders, if these SACK blocks have to be queued
> into the soc
On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 09:13 -0700, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > + /* Only socket owner can try to collapse/prune rx queues
> > +* to reduce memory overhead, so add a little headroom here.
> > +* Few sockets backlog are p
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> When TCP operates in lossy environments (between 1 and 10 % packet
> losses), many SACK blocks can be exchanged, and I noticed we could
> drop them on busy senders, if these SACK blocks have to be queued
> into the so
From: Eric Dumazet
When TCP operates in lossy environments (between 1 and 10 % packet
losses), many SACK blocks can be exchanged, and I noticed we could
drop them on busy senders, if these SACK blocks have to be queued
into the socket backlog.
While the main cause is the poor performance of RACK
17 matches
Mail list logo
