From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:22:23 -0800 Message-ID: <41F5670F.4000209@hp.com> References: <41F1516D.5010101@hp.com> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <41F163AD.5070400@hp.com> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@davemloft.net> <41F17B7E.2020002@hp.com> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@davemloft.net> <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> <20050121204948.034b2510.davem@davemloft.net> <41F55B93.6040603@hp.com> <20050124124353.2f760e1a.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: To: netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <20050124124353.2f760e1a.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David S. Miller wrote: > Becuase we disable TSO on any packet loss whatsoever, we can predict > exactly what the CWND will be at the time a packet is sent. I'd heard someone else mention that, but wasn't sure. Now I know I guess. I can see how that would simplify things considerably, although it may have some non-technical implications... > When we take away that invariant, which we do want to do, we'll need > to tweak how this works. OK. BTW, how "hard" is it to reference chunks of a big buffer and send them? Particularly in a situation where there is TSO which implies SG and CKO. rick