From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Liu Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:52:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20150602095237.GL19403@zion.uk.xensource.com> References: <552E9E8D.1080000@eu.citrix.com> <1429118948.7346.114.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <552EA2BC.5000707@eu.citrix.com> <1429120373.7346.125.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <552EA844.5010308@eu.citrix.com> <1429121979.7346.138.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <552F7936.9070205@eu.citrix.com> <552F7EF4.9030107@iogearbox.net> <552F887A.4060708@eu.citrix.com> <1429188136.7346.198.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: George Dunlap , Daniel Borkmann , Jonathan Davies , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , "Stefano Stabellini" , netdev , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Eric Dumazet , "Paul Durrant" , Christoffer Dall , Felipe Franciosi , , "David Vrabel" To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:35236 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750950AbbFBJwp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 05:52:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1429188136.7346.198.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Eric Sorry for coming late to the discussion. On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:42:16AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 11:01 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > > He suggested that after he'd been prodded by 4 more e-mails in which two > > of us guessed what he was trying to get at. That's what I was > > complaining about. > > My big complain is that I suggested to test to double the sysctl, which > gave good results. > Do I understand correctly that it's acceptable to you to double the size of the buffer? If so I will send a patch to do that. Wei. > Then you provided a patch using a 8x factor. How does that sound ? > > Next time I ask a raise, I should try a 8x factor as well, who knows, > it might be accepted. > >