From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wei.liu2@citrix.com (Wei Liu)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:52:37 +0100
Subject: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance
 regression on Xen
In-Reply-To: <1429188136.7346.198.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <552E9E8D.1080000@eu.citrix.com>
 <1429118948.7346.114.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
 <552EA2BC.5000707@eu.citrix.com>
 <1429120373.7346.125.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
 <552EA844.5010308@eu.citrix.com>
 <1429121979.7346.138.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
 <552F7936.9070205@eu.citrix.com> <552F7EF4.9030107@iogearbox.net>
 <552F887A.4060708@eu.citrix.com>
 <1429188136.7346.198.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Message-ID: <20150602095237.GL19403@zion.uk.xensource.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Eric

Sorry for coming late to the discussion.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:42:16AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> 
> > He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two
> > of us guessed what he was trying to get at.  That's what I was
> > complaining about.
> 
> My big complain is that I suggested to test to double the sysctl, which
> gave good results.
> 

Do I understand correctly that it's acceptable to you to double the size
of the buffer? If so I will send a patch to do that.

Wei.

> Then you provided a patch using a 8x factor. How does that sound ?
> 
> Next time I ask a raise, I should try a 8x factor as well, who knows,
> it might be accepted.
> 
>