From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080424.233643.250240829.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080422.205945.229828014.davem@davemloft.net> <87ej8uyjvv.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <65634d660804242234w66455bedve44801a98e3de9d9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, johnwheffner@gmail.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: therbert@google.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:54287 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756319AbYDYGgn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:36:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <65634d660804242234w66455bedve44801a98e3de9d9@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "Tom Herbert" Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:34:50 -0700 > Queuing in the host as opposed to in the TX NIC might be beneficial to make > work conserving queuing disciplines more effective, since once a packet is > queued in the NIC the host can no longer perform any more scheduling on > it. In fact, we have been working on a mechanism to dynamically limit > queuing in the NIC (by number of bytes), so that more packets will be queued > in host. This seems to give better results with some of the qdiscs (I can > post a patch if there's interest in this). This work is interesting, but doesn't it make more sense to limit by number of packets instead of bytes? No intermediate node that I know of drops bytes, they drop packets instead :-)