* Re: Is kernel 2.6.11 adjust tcp_max_syn_backlog incorrectly?
[not found] ` <75052be705060607106a6c0882@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2005-06-11 10:25 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-13 21:24 ` David S. Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2005-06-11 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Skywind; +Cc: davem, casavan, linux-kernel, netdev
Skywind <gnuwind@gmail.com> writes:
>
> It seems that kernel don't adjust these value automatic, is this a bug?
>
> I guess the mechanism of tcp.c in 2.6.11 have some changes(between
> 2.6.10), and it conduce to this result,
> Is this guess correctly?
Yes, there were some changes here when it was converted to a common
function for all hash tables (alloc_large_system_hash - the function
with the argument list from hell). Anyways, here's a quick fix.
DaveM for your consideration.
Adjust TCP mem order check to new alloc_large_system_hash
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
--- linux-2.6.11-work/net/ipv4/tcp.c~ 2005-03-02 08:37:51.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-work/net/ipv4/tcp.c 2005-06-11 12:16:22.000000000 +0200
@@ -2337,7 +2337,7 @@
(tcp_bhash_size * sizeof(struct tcp_bind_hashbucket));
order++)
;
- if (order > 4) {
+ if (order >= 4) {
sysctl_local_port_range[0] = 32768;
sysctl_local_port_range[1] = 61000;
sysctl_tcp_max_tw_buckets = 180000;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Is kernel 2.6.11 adjust tcp_max_syn_backlog incorrectly?
2005-06-11 10:25 ` Is kernel 2.6.11 adjust tcp_max_syn_backlog incorrectly? Andi Kleen
@ 2005-06-13 21:24 ` David S. Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David S. Miller @ 2005-06-13 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ak; +Cc: gnuwind, casavan, linux-kernel, netdev
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:25:08 +0200
> Yes, there were some changes here when it was converted to a common
> function for all hash tables (alloc_large_system_hash - the function
> with the argument list from hell). Anyways, here's a quick fix.
>
> DaveM for your consideration.
>
> Adjust TCP mem order check to new alloc_large_system_hash
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
I just reread those NUMA changes, and they changed the heuristics
for sizing things at the same time as moving over to the
alloc_large_system_hash() change.
The change was to move from (21 - PAGE_SHIFT) and (23 - PAGE_SHIFT)
to (25 - PAGE_SHIFT) and (27 - PAGE_SHIFT) respectively.
This is the part of the NUMA TCP changes that made the sysctl setting
behavior differ.
Andi's patch is the least intrusive fix for 2.6.12, so I will
apply it. But longer term these heuristics need to be revisited
as a whole.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-06-13 21:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <75052be7050606070691c302d@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <75052be705060607106a6c0882@mail.gmail.com>
2005-06-11 10:25 ` Is kernel 2.6.11 adjust tcp_max_syn_backlog incorrectly? Andi Kleen
2005-06-13 21:24 ` David S. Miller
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).