[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707302019110.8788@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:19:40 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-2.6 2/2] [TCP]: Bidir flow must not disregard SACK blocks
for lost marking
It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get
a cumulative ACK with enough SACK blocks to trigger the fast
recovery (is_dupack would be false there too).
I'm not completely pleased with this solution because readability
of the code is somewhat questionable as 'is_dupack' in SACK case
is no longer about dupacks only but would mean something like
'lost_marker_work_todo' too... But because of Eifel stuff done
in CA_Recovery, the FLAG_DATA_SACKED check cannot be placed to
the if statement which seems attractive solution. Nevertheless,
I didn't like adding another variable just for that either... :-)
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 767f92c..cfe6ac7 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -2109,7 +2109,10 @@ tcp_fastretrans_alert(struct sock *sk, u32 prior_snd_una,
{
struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk);
struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
- int is_dupack = (tp->snd_una == prior_snd_una && !(flag&FLAG_NOT_DUP));
+ int is_dupack = (tp->snd_una == prior_snd_una &&
+ (!(flag&FLAG_NOT_DUP) ||
+ ((flag&FLAG_DATA_SACKED) &&
+ (tp->fackets_out > tp->reordering))));
/* Some technical things:
* 1. Reno does not count dupacks (sacked_out) automatically. */
--
1.5.0.6
Powered by blists - more mailing lists