From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ns3.lanforge.com (mail.candelatech.com [208.74.158.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3473E21F095 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.111] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q6BFhKYA004751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:43:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FFD9F18.6030401@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:43:20 -0700 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Dumazet References: <1340945457.29822.7.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1341396687.2583.1757.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120709.000834.1182150057463599677.davem@davemloft.net> <1341845722.3265.3065.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1341933215.3265.5476.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1342019518.3265.8116.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FFD98EA.1040301@candelatech.com> <1342020306.3265.8129.camel@edumazet-glaptop> In-Reply-To: <1342020306.3265.8129.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:17:48 -0700 Cc: nanditad@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mattmathis@google.com, codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, ncardwell@google.com, David Miller Subject: Re: [Codel] [RFC PATCH v2] tcp: TCP Small Queues X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:43:30 -0000 On 07/11/2012 08:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 08:16 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >> I haven't read your patch in detail, but I was wondering if this feature >> would cause trouble for applications that are servicing many sockets at once >> and so might take several ms between handling each individual socket. >> > > Well, this patch has no impact for such applications. In fact their > send()/write() will return to userland faster than before (for very > large send()) Maybe I'm just confused. Is your patch just mucking with the queues below the tcp xmit queues? From the patch description I was thinking you were somehow directly limiting the TCP xmit queues... If you are just draining the tcp xmit queues on a new/faster trigger, then I see no problem with that, and no need for a per-socket control. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com