From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] tcp: implement coalescing on backlog queue
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 13:01:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CADVnQykiiFz5H3J_vrCXHQ_FQ+Fg3qCZKoynsc_fdY_PcTx8cg@mail.gmail.com>
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: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, jean-louis@dupond.be,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com ([209.85.210.66]:41926 "EHLO
        mail-ot1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1732278AbeKWEmU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:42:20 -0500
Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id u16so8701071otk.8
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:01:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20181121175240.6075-3-edumazet@google.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:52 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> In case GRO is not as efficient as it should be or disabled,
> we might have a user thread trapped in __release_sock() while
> softirq handler flood packets up to the point we have to drop.
>
> This patch balances work done from user thread and softirq,
> to give more chances to __release_sock() to complete its work.
>
> This also helps if we receive many ACK packets, since GRO
> does not aggregate them.

Would this coalesce duplicate incoming ACK packets? Is there a risk
that this would eliminate incoming dupacks needed for fast recovery in
non-SACK connections? Perhaps pure ACKs should only be coalesced if
the ACK field is different?

neal