From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
To: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:10:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41F98306.6070804@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050124124353.2f760e1a.davem@davemloft.net>
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've been quiet the past few days, but this is the kind of implementation
> I've been thinking of.
>
> When we take away that invariant, which we do want to do, we'll need
> to tweak how this works.
Having thought about the topic a bit, it now seems that there were two benchmark
run-rule compliance problems with TSO in 2.6. One is the slow-start stuff that
has been worked-on and may get a couple additional tweaks (hopefully).
The other relates to the business of disabling TSO on a connection upon packet loss.
While the benchmark(s) that spring to mind are run over generally lossless LANs,
the intent is that the solution be suitable for an Internet connected system
(yes, someone could probably punch big gaping holes there...). Internet
connected systems experience non-trivial packet loss rates and so if TSO
disabled upon packet loss it means a given benchmark result using TSO deviates
even more from reality than one without TSO.
I suspect it would be found to be a benchmark special and disallowed.
I do not know what other stacks do with their TSO implementation to know if they
are in a similar state. It would be good to know if anyone out there knows and
would be willing to say.
rick jones
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-28 0:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-21 19:01 on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes? Rick Jones
2005-01-21 19:58 ` Jon Mason
2005-01-21 20:18 ` Rick Jones
2005-01-21 20:44 ` David S. Miller
2005-01-21 22:00 ` Rick Jones
2005-01-21 22:18 ` David S. Miller
2005-01-21 22:48 ` Rick Jones
2005-01-21 22:58 ` Rick Jones
2005-01-22 4:44 ` David S. Miller
2005-01-22 18:58 ` rick jones
2005-01-22 4:49 ` David S. Miller
2005-01-22 19:05 ` rick jones
2005-01-24 20:33 ` Rick Jones
2005-01-24 20:43 ` David S. Miller
2005-01-24 21:22 ` Rick Jones
2005-01-28 0:10 ` Rick Jones [this message]
2005-01-28 0:57 ` David S. Miller
2005-01-28 1:36 ` Rick Jones
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=41F98306.6070804@hp.com \
--to=rick.jones2@hp.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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).