On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 08:46 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 16:27 +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> > Combining actual collapsing with reasoning for deciding the starting
> > point, we can apply its logic in a consistent manner such that we can
> > avoid costly yet not much useful collapsing. When collapsing to be
> > triggered, it's not rare that most of the skbs in the receive or ooo
> > queue are large ones without much metadata overhead. This also
> > simplifies code and makes it easier to apply logic in a fair manner.
> >
> > Subtle subsidiary changes included:
> > - When the end_seq of the skb we are trying to collapse was larger than
> > the 'end' argument provided, we would end up copying to the 'end'
> > even though we couldn't collapse the original one. Current users of
> > tcp_collapse does not require such reserves so redefines it as the
> > point over which skbs whose seq passes guranteed not to be collapsed.
> > - Naturally tcp_collapse_ofo_queue shapes up and we no longer need
> > 'tail' argument.
>
>
> I am not inclined to review such a large change, without you providing
> actual numbers.
>
> We have a problem in TCP right now, that receiver announces a too big
> window, and that is the main reason we trigger collapsing.
>
> I would rather fix the root cause.
>
>
Ok I got it, thank you.
