From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: TSO and IPoIB performance degradation Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:47:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1142855223.3114.30.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <20060320090629.GA11352@mellanox.co.il> <20060320.015500.72136710.davem@davemloft.net> <20060320102234.GV29929@mellanox.co.il> <20060320.023704.70907203.davem@davemloft.net> <20060320112753.GX29929@mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org, "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" In-Reply-To: <20060320112753.GX29929@mellanox.co.il> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: openib-general-bounces@openib.org Errors-To: openib-general-bounces@openib.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 13:27 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting David S. Miller : > > I disagree with Linux changing it's behavior. It would be great to > > turn off congestion control completely over local gigabit networks, > > but that isn't determinable in any way, so we don't do that. > > Interesting. Would it make sense to make it another tunable knob in > /proc, sysfs or sysctl then? that's not the right level; since that is per interface. And you only know the actual interface waay too late (as per earlier posts). Per socket.. maybe But then again it's not impossible to have packets for one socket go out to multiple interfaces (think load balancing bonding over 2 interfaces, one IB another ethernet)