Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

[Alexander Duyck]

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:24 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> If this is only meant to be a performance modification and is only
>> really targeted at TCP TSO/GRO then all I ask is that we use a name
>> like tcp_max_gso_frags and relocate the sysctl to the TCP section.
>> Otherwise if we are actually going to try to scope this out on a wider
>> level and limit all frags which is what the name implies then the
>> patch set needs to make a better attempt at covering all cases where
>> it may apply.
>
>
> This is the goal.
>
> Other skb providers (like tun and af_packet) will also use this optional
> limit.
>
> I fail to see why Hans should send a complete patch series.

You realize that conflicts with what anybody else would be told.  What
was provided in this patch is a half solution, and it may cause bigger
messes since it is unclear exactly how this sysctl is meant to be
used.

> We will send followup patches, as we always did.
>
> I will send the GRO change for example.
>
> So please keep a sysctl name _without_ TCP in it, it really has nothing
> to do with TCP.

In the end I am not the one you have to convince.  I have simply
stated my opinion, and I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  It
is entirely up to Dave if he wants to apply it or not.  I have slides
I need to work on for next week.. :-)

- Alex