Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:12:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:12:36 -0400 Received: from minus.inr.ac.ru ([193.233.7.97]:56839 "HELO ms2.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:12:17 -0400 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Message-Id: <200110141912.XAA06706@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: TCP acking too fast To: Mika.Liljeberg@welho.com (Mika Liljeberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:12:31 +0400 (MSK DST) Cc: ak@muc.de, davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3BC9DE09.747F45B2@welho.com> from "Mika Liljeberg" at Oct 14, 1 09:48:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > > But sending ACK on buffer drain at least for short > > packets is real demand, which cannot be relaxed. > > Why? This one has me stumped. To remove sick delays with nagling transfers (1) and to remove deadlocks due to starvation on rcvbuf (2) at receiver and on sndbuf at sender (3). Actually, (2) is solved nowadays with compressing queue. (3) can be solved acking each other segment. But (1) remains. The solution used in 2.2, when delack timeout was reduced to short value on short packets with PSH set worked with probability of 50% on very slow links i.e. in the case when wrong delay is not important at all and not covering cases where absence of long gaps is really important. Actually, any alternative idea how to solve this could be very useful. Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/