[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805131258070.15369@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:04:04 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix FRTO+NewReno problem
On Tue, 13 May 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:42:03 +0300 (EEST)
>
> > On Mon, 12 May 2008, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > If I understand correctly, it is only non-SACK newreno case that can
> > > get the unnecessary retransmissions, right? If so, it's not a big
> > > deal at all.
> >
> > No, also SACK could get at least one quite easily if TCP has a small
> > window, to get two of them with SACK one needs to have a stranger case
> > unless I missed something. If I just remove that forward transmission LOST
> > marking avoidance unconditionally, it fixes that SACKFRTO window of
> > failure too which was a pending thing to fix :-).
>
> Ok.
Hmm, my paragraph was likely ambiguous. So unnecessary transmissions can
occur with SACK with that change but another problem that would have
required a fix went away with that change.
> > Btw, the first two fixes (workaround was not included) also fixed bugzilla
> > #10063, I just got a confirmation about that as well.
> >
> > I'll send the two patches still pending separately in a minute.
>
> Thank you.
Forgot to mention earlier, these should go to stable too (but you
probably figured that out anyway).
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists