From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:38304 "EHLO
        mail-pl0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750829AbeBTUJj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:09:39 -0500
Received: by mail-pl0-f46.google.com with SMTP id d4so1782769pll.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1519157377.55655.26.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] tcp: remove non GSO code
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:09:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iK1tTWqXmYZq67drQrJAwxA3UvKscbCpeJhB1hm-k5gmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180219195652.242663-1-edumazet@google.com>
         <4964697.hB4CnsZvNY@natalenko.name>
         <CANn89iL3Bd-+Bq2srDMAzh6OOQM_dxCC6_b_pUesXtnVAGigbA@mail.gmail.com>
         <9897026.Es27HaT4ta@natalenko.name>
         <CANn89iK1tTWqXmYZq67drQrJAwxA3UvKscbCpeJhB1hm-k5gmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 11:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko
> <oleksandr@natalenko.name> wrote:
> > On úterý 20. února 2018 20:39:49 CET Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > I am not trying to compare BBR and Reno on a lossless link.
> > > 
> > > Reno is running as fast as possible and will win when bufferbloat is
> > > not an issue.
> > > 
> > > If bufferbloat is not an issue, simply use Reno and be happy ;)
> > > 
> > > My patch helps BBR only, I thought it was obvious ;)
> > 
> > Umm, yes, and my point was rather something like "the speed on a lossless link
> > while using BBR with and without this patch is the same". Sorry for a
> > confusion. I guess, the key word here is "lossless".
> 
> That is with the other patches _not_ applied ?
> 
> Here the gain is quite big, since BBR can setup a slightly better
> cwnd, allowing proper GRO on receiver.

Also you can tune your NIC to accept few MSS per GSO/TSO packet

ip link set dev eth0 gso_max_segs 2

So even if TSO/GSO is there, BBR should not use sk->sk_gso_max_segs to
size its bursts, since burt sizes are also impacting GRO on the
receiver.