From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lennert Buytenhek Subject: Re: TSO and IPoIB performance degradation Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:49:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20060320114933.GA3058@xi.wantstofly.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> <1142855223.3114.30.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Arjan van de Ven Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1142855223.3114.30.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> 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, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:47:03PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > 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) I read it as if he was proposing to have a sysctl knob to turn off TCP congestion control completely (which has so many issues it's not even funny.)