From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:25:32 -0800
> it could be limited to power of 2 and a shift?
That might not be a bad idea.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hi,
here an idea, how we might get rid of the nasty divide:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> +/* RFC2861 Check whether we are limited by application or congestion
> window + * This is the inverse of tcp_tso_should_defer
> + */
> +static inline int tcp_cwnd_full(const struct tcp_sock *tp, u32 in_flight,
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:15:15 -0800 (PST)
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:14:20 -0800
>
> > The core of what I am now testing is:
>
> Looks good but I'm starting to hate that divide, and now we'll
> have to eat
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:14:20 -0800
> The core of what I am now testing is:
Looks good but I'm starting to hate that divide, and now we'll
have to eat it for every ACK too :-/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the b
The core of what I am now testing is:
+/* RFC2861 Check whether we are limited by application or congestion window
+ * This is the inverse of tcp_tso_should_defer
+ */
+static inline int tcp_cwnd_full(const struct tcp_sock *tp, u32 in_flight,
+ u32 ack_seq)
+{
+
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:22:15 -0800
> I am looking into creating a function tcp_is_application_limited()
> to replace the old in flight check. It is kind of the logical inverse
> of the nagle check code on output.
That's a great idea, I was going to s
Please don't apply existing patch as is.
>
> But this check Stephen is removing _is_ part of our congestion
> window validation implementation. Although not mentioned explicitly
> in that RFC, this check we are discussing is sort of implied by
> that text and I'm very sure this is why Alexey add
From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:39:24 -0400
> On Oct 28, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > The following update cwnd for every ACK, but it ends up making Linux
> > more aggressive
> > (but still in compliance with existing RFC's).
>
> Since Linux
