From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuchung Cheng Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] tcp: implement coalescing on backlog queue Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 08:34:16 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20181121175240.6075-1-edumazet@google.com> <20181121175240.6075-3-edumazet@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Eric Dumazet , "David S . Miller" , netdev , Jean-Louis Dupond , Neal Cardwell To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-it1-f195.google.com ([209.85.166.195]:39776 "EHLO mail-it1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388792AbeKWDPE (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:15:04 -0500 Received: by mail-it1-f195.google.com with SMTP id m15so14577409itl.4 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 08:34:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On 11/21/2018 02:31 PM, Yuchung Cheng wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >>> + >> Really nice! would it make sense to re-use (some of) the similar >> tcp_try_coalesce()? >> > > Maybe, but it is a bit complex, since skbs in receive queues (regular or out of order) > are accounted differently (they have skb->destructor set) > > Also they had the TCP header pulled already, while the backlog coalescing also has > to make sure TCP options match. > > Not sure if we want to add extra parameters and conditional checks... Makes sense. Acked-by: Yuchung Cheng > >