Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751052AbWCTLx5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:53:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751065AbWCTLx4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:53:56 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:17107 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052AbWCTLx4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:53:56 -0500 Subject: Re: TSO and IPoIB performance degradation From: Arjan van de Ven To: Lennert Buytenhek Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , "David S. Miller" , rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org In-Reply-To: <20060320114933.GA3058@xi.wantstofly.org> 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> <1142855223.3114.30.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060320114933.GA3058@xi.wantstofly.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:53:35 +0100 Message-Id: <1142855615.3114.33.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1275 Lines: 29 On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 12:49 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:47:03PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > 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) > > I read it as if he was proposing to have a sysctl knob to turn off > TCP congestion control completely (which has so many issues it's not > even funny.) owww that's so bad I didn't even consider that - 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/