--- Begin Message ---
> On 25 Apr 2018, at 21:45, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For those who have not been following the discussion on the upstreaming
> patches, here's an update:
>
> <snip>
>
> So please do test the current git version (cobalt branch, still). I'm
> planning to resubmit on Friday.
The two routers running that latest code survived the night which is a good
sign.
I’ve sort of half been following the ‘discussion’, as ever the reaction from
the kernel people makes it a place I never wish to look/contribute, ….. this
from Eric has me disturbed "If you keep saying this old urban legend, I will
NACK your patch.I am tired of people pretending GSO/TSO are bad for latencies.”
Genuine question: I have a superpacket circa 64K, this is a lump of data in a
tcp flow. I have another small VOIP packet, it’s latency sensitive. If I
split the super packet into individual 1.5K packets as they would be on the
wire, I can insert my VOIP packet at suitable place in time such that jitter
targets are not exceeded. If I don’t split the super packet, surely I have to
wait till the end of the superpacket’s queue (for want of a better word) and
possibly exceed my latency target. That looks to me like ‘GSO/TSO’ is
potentially bad for interflow latencies. What don’t I understand here?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
