Re: [PATCH 0/9]: tcp-2.6 patchset

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>]

On Sun, 27 May 2007, Baruch Even wrote:

> * Ilpo J?rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> [070527 14:16]:
> > 
> > Thus, my original question basically culminates in this: should cc
> > modules be passed number of packets acked or number of skbs acked?
> > ...The latter makes no sense to me unless the value is intented to
> > be interpreted as number of timestamps acked or something along those 
> > lines. ...I briefly tried looking up for documentation for cc module 
> > interface but didn't find anything useful about this, and thus asked in 
> > the first place...
> 
> At least the htcp module that I wrote assumes that the number is actual
> number of tcp packets so GSO should be considered.

Thanks for the info! It is what I suspected... ...I'll write a patch for 
it tomorrow against net-2.6... Dave, beware that it will partially 
overlap with the changes made in the patch 8, so you might choose to put 
the patch 8 on hold until this issue is first resolved...

> The consequences of this bug are not too large but it does make all
> congestion control algorithms a lot less aggressive. On my machines GSO
> is disabled by default (e1000 at 100mbps & Tigon3 @ 1Gbps).

Agreed, that's my impression too. However, some algorithms do things
like > 0 checks for it, so it might disturb their dynamics even more
than in the "too small value" cases...


-- 
 i.