On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:21:30PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 19:34 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > +bool tcp_add_backlog(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 limit = sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf;
> > ^^^
> > ...
> > > + if (!skb->data_len)
> > > + skb->truesize = SKB_TRUESIZE(skb_end_offset(skb));
> > > +
> > > + if (unlikely(sk_add_backlog(sk, skb, limit))) {
> > ...
> > > - } else if (unlikely(sk_add_backlog(sk, skb,
> > > - sk->sk_rcvbuf + sk->sk_sndbuf))) {
> > ^---- [1]
> > > - bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> > > - __NET_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_TCPBACKLOGDROP);
> > > + } else if (tcp_add_backlog(sk, skb)) {
> >
> > Hi Eric, after this patch, do you think we still need to add sk_sndbuf
> > as a stretching factor to the backlog here?
> >
> > It was added by [1] and it was justified that the (s)ack packets were
> > just too big for the rx buf size. Maybe this new patch alone is enough
> > already, as such packets will have a very small truesize then.
> >
> > Marcelo
> >
> > [1] da882c1f2eca ("tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for TCP")
> >
>
> Hi Marcelo
>
> Yes, it is still needed, some drivers provide linear skbs, so the
> skb->truesize of ack packets will likely be the same (skb->head points
> to a full size frame allocated by the driver)
Aye. In that case, what about using tail instead of end? 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.
