From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Heffner Subject: Re: TSO trimming question Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:02:21 -0500 Message-ID: <476A920D.6020401@psc.edu> References: <20071219.235450.170670042.davem@davemloft.net> <20071220.035621.147230372.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi, netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mailer2.psc.edu ([128.182.66.106]:49418 "EHLO mailer2.psc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765449AbXLTQCl (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:02:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071220.035621.147230372.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: "Ilpo_J=E4rvinen" > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:40:51 +0200 (EET) >=20 >> [PATCH] [TCP]: Fix TSO deferring >> >> I'd say that most of what tcp_tso_should_defer had in between >> there was dead code because of this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ilpo J=E4rvinen >=20 > Yikes!!!!! >=20 > John, we've been living a lie for more than a year. :-/ >=20 > On the bright side this explains a lot of small TSO frames I've been > seeing in traces over the past year but never got a chance to > investigate. Ouch. This fix may improve some benchmarks. Re-checking this function was on my list of things to do because I had=20 also noticed some TSO frames that seemed a bit small. This clearly=20 explains it. -John