Subject: Re: TSO and IPoIB performance degradation
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, rick.jones2@hp.com,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       openib-general@openib.org
In-Reply-To: <20060320112753.GX29929@mellanox.co.il>
References: <20060320090629.GA11352@mellanox.co.il>
	 <20060320.015500.72136710.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <20060320102234.GV29929@mellanox.co.il>
	 <20060320.023704.70907203.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <20060320112753.GX29929@mellanox.co.il>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:47:03 +0100
Message-Id: <1142855223.3114.30.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 993
Lines: 23

On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 13:27 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> > I disagree with Linux changing it's behavior.  It would be great to
> > turn off congestion control completely over local gigabit networks,
> > but that isn't determinable in any way, so we don't do that.
> 
> Interesting. Would it make sense to make it another tunable knob in
> /proc, sysfs or sysctl then?

that's not the right level; since that is per interface. And you only
know the actual interface waay too late (as per earlier posts).
Per socket.. maybe
But then again it's not impossible to have packets for one socket go out
to multiple interfaces
(think load balancing bonding over 2 interfaces, one IB another
ethernet)


-
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/