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
16 matches
Mail list logo
