On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:13 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/27/2018 01:58 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>
> > I wonder if technically perhaps the logic should skip coalescing if
> > the tail or skb has the TCP_FLAG_URG bit set? It seems if skbs are
> > coalesced, and some have urgent data and som
On 11/27/2018 01:58 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> I wonder if technically perhaps the logic should skip coalescing if
> the tail or skb has the TCP_FLAG_URG bit set? It seems if skbs are
> coalesced, and some have urgent data and some do not, then the
> TCP_FLAG_URG bit will be accumulated into th
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:57 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> In case GRO is not as efficient as it should be or disabled,
> we might have a user thread trapped in __release_sock() while
> softirq handler flood packets up to the point we have to drop.
>
> This patch balances work done from user thread
In case GRO is not as efficient as it should be or disabled,
we might have a user thread trapped in __release_sock() while
softirq handler flood packets up to the point we have to drop.
This patch balances work done from user thread and softirq,
to give more chances to __release_sock() to complete
