From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: add tcp_add_backlog() Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:34:11 -0300 Message-ID: <20160922223411.GA17222@localhost.localdomain> References: <1472308674.14381.226.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev , Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55026 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757905AbcIVWe3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:34:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1472308674.14381.226.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > +bool tcp_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) > +{ > + u32 limit = sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf; ^^^ ... > + if (!skb->data_len) > + skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_end_offset(skb)); > + > + if (unlikely(sk_add_backlog(sk, skb, limit))) { ... > - } else if (unlikely(sk_add_backlog(sk, skb, > - sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf))) { ^---- [1] > - bh_unlock_sock(sk); > - __NET_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_TCPBACKLOGDROP); > + } else if (tcp_add_backlog(sk, skb)) { Hi Eric, after this patch, do you think we still need to add sk_sndbuf as a stretching factor to the backlog here? It was added by [1] and it was justified that the (s)ack packets were just too big for the rx buf size. Maybe this new patch alone is enough already, as such packets will have a very small truesize then. Marcelo [1] da882c1f2eca ("tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for TCP")