linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Expose the initial RTO via a new sysctl.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 May 2011 14:20:23 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc:	Benoit Sigoure <tsunanet@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Expose the initial RTO via a new sysctl.

Le mardi 17 mai 2011 à 13:02 +0200, Hagen Paul Pfeifer a écrit :
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:07:57 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > I wont discuss if introducing a new sysctl is welcomed, only on patch
> > issues. I believe some work in IETF is done to reduce the 3sec value to
> > 1sec anyway.
> 
> Why not? 

Just because I let this point to David and others. I personally dont
care that much.

> I though all new knobs in this area should be done on a per route
> metric so it can be controlled on a per path basis. RTO should be
> adjustable on a per path basis, because it depends on the path.
> 

Adding many knobs to each clone had a huge cost on previous kernels.
(Think some machines have millions entries in IP route cache), this used
quite a lot of memory.

With latest David work, we'll consume less ram, because we can now share
settings, instead of copying them on each dst entry.



> Some months back [1] I posted a patch to enable/disable TCP quick ack
> mode, which has nothing to do with network paths, just with a local server
> policy. But David rejected the patch with the argument that I should use a
> per path knob (this is a little bit inapprehensible for me, but David has
> the last word).

Well, if nobody speaks after David, he has the last word indeed.

BTW, I remember Stephen actually asked the per route thing, not David.

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/8/23/6283641

Then David also stated it :

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/8/23/6283678

If you really want tcp_quickack thing you really should do it as
requested by both Stephen & David ;)

Unfortunately, I dont know if its really needed or worthwhile.


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