From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: add tcp_add_backlog() Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:42:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1474638171.28155.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> References: <1472308674.14381.226.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <20160922223411.GA17222@localhost.localdomain> <1474586490.28155.10.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <20160923124517.GB17222@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev , Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:34515 "EHLO mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030236AbcIWNmx (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:42:53 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f65.google.com with SMTP id i5so1972733pad.1 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:42:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160923124517.GB17222@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:45 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > Aye. In that case, what about using tail instead of end? What do you mean exactly ? > Because > accounting for something that we have to tweak the limits to accept is > like adding a constant to both sides of the equation. > But perhaps that would cut out too much of the fat which could be used > later by the stack. Are you facing a particular problem with current code ? I am working to reduce the SACK at their source (the receiver), instead of trying to filter them when they had to travel all the way back to TCP sender.