From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Heffner Subject: Re: SWS for rcvbuf < MTU Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:40:12 -0500 Message-ID: <45EA075C.5010406@psc.edu> References: <200703021521.58821.alexandre.sidorenko@hp.com> <20070302.123325.28790131.davem@davemloft.net> <45E89437.3000902@psc.edu> <20070302.133839.17868570.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: alexandre.sidorenko@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mailer1.psc.edu ([128.182.58.100]:54108 "EHLO mailer1.psc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750788AbXCCXkV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2007 18:40:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070302.133839.17868570.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: John Heffner > Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:16:39 -0500 > >> Please don't apply the patch I sent. I've been thinking about this a >> bit harder, and it may not fix this particular problem. (Hard to say >> without knowing exactly what it is.) As the comment above >> __tcp_select_window() states, we do not do full receive-side SWS >> avoidance because of header prediction. >> >> Alex, you're right I missed that special zero-window case. I'm still >> not quite sure I'm completely happy with this patch. I'd like to think >> about this a little bit harder... > > Ok Alright, I've thought about it a bit more, and I think the patch I sent should work. Alex, any opinion? Any way you can test this out? Thanks, -John