From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 23:27:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20100526212745.GC24615@basil.fritz.box> References: <20100525.225236.226781050.davem@davemloft.net> <87fx1e1sat.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20100526.140818.245406045.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, therbert@google.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ycheng@google.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:34928 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754776Ab0EZV1v (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 17:27:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100526.140818.245406045.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Yes all of Saudi-Arabia used to be (is?) one IP address... > > > > Caching anything per IP is bogus. > > And letting the applications choose the CWND is better?!?! No I actually agree with you on that. Just saying that anything that relies on per IP caching is bad too. As I understand the idea was that the application knows what flows belong to a single peer and wants to have a single cwnd for all of those. Perhaps there would be a way to generalize that to tell it to the kernel. e.g. have a "peer id" that is known by applications and the kernel could manage cwnds shared between connections associated with the same peer id? Just an idea, I admit I haven't thought very deeply about this. Feel free to poke holes into it. -Andi