Hi,
On 7/14/16 7:38 PM, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 6/28/16 12:06 PM, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 12/7/15 4:36 PM, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>> On 30/05/14 06:12, k simon wrote:
Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
>>>
>>> I got a bit of interest of having the performance improvem
Hi,
On 6/28/16 12:06 PM, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 12/7/15 4:36 PM, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 30/05/14 06:12, k simon wrote:
>>> Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
>>
>> I got a bit of interest of having the performance improvements for
>> short-lived TCP connections in 10-sta
Hi -net,
On 12/7/15 4:36 PM, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 30/05/14 06:12, k simon wrote:
>> Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
>
> I got a bit of interest of having the performance improvements for
> short-lived TCP connections in 10-stable. Just to share the current
> status to
Hi,
On 30/05/14 06:12, k simon wrote:
> Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
I got a bit of interest of having the performance improvements for
short-lived TCP connections in 10-stable. Just to share the current
status to a wider audience:
- I maintain a stack of our TCP perfor
On 20/05/15 16:57, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 20 May 2015 at 06:27, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 26/05/14 15:36, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> For people interested about this short-lived TCP connection scalability
>> effort, you can subscribe to the review of our latest (and biggest so
>> fa
On 20 May 2015 at 06:27, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 26/05/14 15:36, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 23/05/14 23:37, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
>>> On 05/23/14 13:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 07/11
Hi,
On 26/05/14 15:36, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 23/05/14 23:37, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
>> On 05/23/14 13:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>> On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013
Hi,
On 03/11/14 14:29, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 03/10/14 15:16, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>> On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
> wrote:
>>
Great job. It would help me a lot.
Simon
在 14/11/3 21:29, Julien Charbon 写道:
Hi,
On 03/10/14 15:16, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julie
Hi,
On 03/10/14 15:16, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>> On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
wrote:
> I have put technical and how-to-repeat detai
Hi,
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
> On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
>>> wrote:
I have put technical and how-to-repeat details in below PR:
kern/183659: TCP stack
Hi Simon,
On 30/05/14 06:12, k simon wrote:
Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
These patches are still under active review and testing, no plan to
commit soon yet. As usual having more people testing these changes (and
reporting found issues - or no issue) might accelerat
Hi,
Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
Regards
Simon
于 14-5-29 0:42, Julien Charbon 写道:
Hi,
On 23/05/14 22:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov
Hi,
On 23/05/14 22:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
wrote:
I have put technical and how-to-repeat details in below PR:
ke
Hi Navdeep
On 23/05/14 23:37, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
On 05/23/14 13:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
wrote:
I have put tec
On 05/23/14 13:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
>> On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>> On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
wrote:
> I have put technical and how-to-repeat
Hi,
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:21:04 +0100, Julien Charbon
wrote:
I have put technical and how-to-repeat details in below PR:
kern/183659: TCP stack lock contention with short-lived connections
http://www.freebsd
Hi John,
On 07/03/14 13:43, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 06/03/14 22:57, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Julien Charbon wrote this message on Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:32 +0100:
[...]
Any thoughts on this particular behavior?
One thing that I noticed is that you now lock/unlock the tw and inp
lock a
l
Hi John,
On 06/03/14 22:57, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Julien Charbon wrote this message on Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:32 +0100:
[...]
Any thoughts on this particular behavior?
One thing that I noticed is that you now lock/unlock the tw and inp lock a
lot... Have you thought about grabing the
Julien Charbon wrote this message on Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:32 +0100:
> Obviously, to mitigate this lock contention there are various solutions:
>
> - Introduce a new time-wait lock as proposed in joined patch
> - Call tcp_tw_2msl_scan() more often in case of high workload
> - Use INP_INFO_TR
20 matches
Mail list logo
