Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964815AbWCTS6a (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:58:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964835AbWCTS6a (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:58:30 -0500 Received: from palrel13.hp.com ([156.153.255.238]:39822 "EHLO palrel13.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964815AbWCTS63 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:58:29 -0500 Message-ID: <441EFB51.70102@hp.com> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:58:25 -0800 From: Rick Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Lennert Buytenhek , Arjan van de Ven , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: TSO and IPoIB performance degradation 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> <20060320120407.GY29929@mellanox.co.il> <20060320150941.GD16108@kvack.org> In-Reply-To: <20060320150941.GD16108@kvack.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1240 Lines: 27 > Wouldn't it make sense to strech the ACK when the previous ACK is still in > the TX queue of the device? I know that sort of behaviour was always an > issue on modem links where you don't want to send out redundant ACKs. Perhaps, but it isn't clear that it would be worth the cycles to check. I doubt that a simple reference count on the ACK skb would do it since if it were a bare ACK I doubt that TCP keeps a reference to the skb in the first place? Also, what would be the "trigger" to send the next ACK after the previous one had left the building (Elvis-like)? Receipt of N in-order segments? A timeout? If you are going to go ahead and try to do stretch-ACKs, then I suspect the way to go about doing it is to have it behave very much like HP-UX or Solaris, both of which have arguably reasonable ACK-avoidance heuristics in them. But don't try to do it quick and dirty. rick "likes ACK avoidance, just check the archives" jones on netdev, no need to cc me directly - 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/