From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: fw@strlen.de
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, ycheng@google.com, ncardwell@google.com,
edumazet@google.com, soheil@google.com, weiwan@google.com,
brakmo@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/6] tcp: remove prequeue and header prediction
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:22:44 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170729.152244.43564304647234406.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170727233117.29695-1-fw@strlen.de>
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 01:31:11 +0200
> This RFC removes tcp prequeueing and header prediction support.
>
> After a hallway discussion with Eric Dumazet some
> maybe-not-so-useful-anymore TCP stack features came up, HP and
> Prequeue among these.
>
> So this RFC proposes to axe both.
>
> In brief, TCP prequeue assumes a single-process-blocking-read
> design, which is not that common anymore, and the most frequently
> used high-performance networking program that does this is netperf :)
>
> With more commong (e)poll designs, prequeue doesn't work.
>
> The idea behind prequeueing isn't so bad in itself; it moves
> part of tcp processing -- including ack processing (including
> retransmit queue processing) into process context.
> However, removing it would not just avoid some code, for most
> programs it elimiates dead code.
>
> As processing then always occurs in BH context, it would allow us
> to experiment e.g. with bulk-freeing of skb heads when a packet acks
> data on the retransmit queue.
>
> Header prediction is also less useful nowadays.
> For packet trains, GRO will aggregate packets so we do not get
> a per-packet benefit.
> Header prediction will also break down with light packet loss due to SACK.
>
> So, In short: What do others think?
I have no objections to any of this. :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-29 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-27 23:31 [RFC net-next 0/6] tcp: remove prequeue and header prediction Florian Westphal
2017-07-27 23:31 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 1/6] tcp: remove prequeue support Florian Westphal
2017-07-27 23:31 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 2/6] tcp: reindent two spots after prequeue removal Florian Westphal
2017-07-27 23:31 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 3/6] tcp: remove low_latency sysctl Florian Westphal
2017-07-27 23:31 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 4/6] tcp: remove header prediction Florian Westphal
2017-07-27 23:31 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 5/6] tcp: remove CA_ACK_SLOWPATH Florian Westphal
2017-07-27 23:31 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 6/6] tcp: remove unused mib counters Florian Westphal
2017-07-28 19:19 ` [RFC net-next 0/6] tcp: remove prequeue and header prediction Yuchung Cheng
2017-07-29 22:22 ` David Miller [this message]
2017-07-30 2:25 ` Neal Cardwell
2017-07-31 20:04 ` Yuchung Cheng
2017-07-31 20:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-07-31 21:38 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170729.152244.43564304647234406.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=brakmo@fb.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=ncardwell@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=soheil@google.com \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
--cc=ycheng@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).