Re: [net-next PATCH v4 2/3] net: TCP thin linear timeouts

[Andreas Petlund]

On 02/18/2010 10:09 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> 
>> Andreas Petlund wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2010 09:41 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, David Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>> From: Andreas Petlund <apetlund@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:40:41 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>> @@ -341,6 +342,8 @@ struct tcp_sock {
>>>>>>  	u16	advmss;		/* Advertised MSS
>>>>>> */
>>>>>>  	u8	frto_counter;	/* Number of new acks after RTO */
>>>>>>  	u8	nonagle;	/* Disable Nagle algorithm?
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> +	u8      thin_lto    : 1,/* Use linear timeouts for thin
>>>>>> streams */
>>>>>> +		thin_undef  : 7;
>>>>>>          
>>>>> There is now a gap of 3 unused bytes here in this critical
>>>>> core TCP socket data structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please either find a way to avoid this hole, or document
>>>>> it with a comment.
>>>>>       
>>>> There would be multiple bits free for use in both frto_counter and nonagle
>>>> byte.
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> I was playing aroud with this setup:
>>>
>>> =========
>>> u8	nonagle     : 4,/* Disable Nagle algorithm?             */
>>> 	thin_lto    : 1,/* Use linear timeouts for thin streams */
>>> 	thin_dupack : 1,/* Fast retransmit on first dupack      */
>>> 	thin_undef  : 2;
>>> =========
>>>
>>> Do you think that would do the trick?
>>>   
>>
>> According to Ilpo, it would be ok to reduce both ftro_counter and
>> nonagle, so why not join all these into u16 and leave the remaining
>> free bits documented for other people. Like this:
>>
>>    u16 frto_counter:x; /* Number of new acks after RTO */
>>    u16 nonagle:y; /* Disable Nagle algorithm? */
>>    u16 thin_lto:1; /* Use linear timeouts for thin streams */
>>    u16 unused:15-x-y;
>>
>> Not sure about the y and x. Ilpo, can you comment on those values?
> 
> I don't remember top of the hat how much of nonagle used, but for 
> frto_counter max value was 3 iirc. 

I think nonagle uses 4 bits:
======
#define TCP_NAGLE_OFF           1       /* Nagle's algo is disabled */
#define TCP_NAGLE_CORK          2       /* Socket is corked         */
#define TCP_NAGLE_PUSH          4       /* Cork is overridden for already queued data */
======

> However, I'm unsure if compiler is 
> nowadays wise enough to handle bitfields in some not all so stupid way.

Would you then recommend to use a byte for each value, thus avoiding the bitfields?

Cheers,
Andreas

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/