Message-ID: <20090913184128.GA7165@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:41:28 +0200
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	Ivo Calado <ivocalado@...edded.ufcg.edu.br>
Cc:	dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Adds options DROPPED PACKETS and LOSS INTERVALS to
	receiver

| Adds options DROPPED PACKETS and LOSS INTERVALS to receiver. In this patch is added the
| mechanism of gathering information about loss intervals and storing it, for later
| construction of these two options.
This also needs some more work, please see inline.

--- dccp_tree_work5.orig/net/dccp/ccids/lib/packet_history_sp.c
+++ dccp_tree_work5/net/dccp/ccids/lib/packet_history_sp.c
@@ -233,7 +233,9 @@
 }
 
 /* return 1 if a new loss event has been identified */
-static int __two_after_loss(struct tfrc_rx_hist *h, struct sk_buff *skb, u32 n3)
+static int __two_after_loss(struct tfrc_rx_hist *h,
+			    struct sk_buff *skb, u32 n3,
+			    bool *new_loss)
 {
 	u64 s0 = tfrc_rx_hist_loss_prev(h)->tfrchrx_seqno,
 	    s1 = tfrc_rx_hist_entry(h, 1)->tfrchrx_seqno,
@@ -245,6 +247,7 @@
 		tfrc_sp_rx_hist_entry_from_skb(tfrc_rx_hist_entry(h, 3),
 					       skb, n3);
 		h->num_losses = dccp_loss_count(s2, s3, n3);
+		*new_loss = 1;
 		return 1;
 	}
 
@@ -259,6 +262,7 @@
 					       skb, n3);
 		h->loss_count = 3;
 		h->num_losses = dccp_loss_count(s1, s3, n3);
+		*new_loss = 1;
 		return 1;
 	}
 
@@ -284,6 +288,7 @@
 			tfrc_sp_rx_hist_entry_from_skb(
 					tfrc_rx_hist_loss_prev(h), skb, n3);
 
+		*new_loss = 0;
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -297,6 +302,7 @@
 	h->loss_count = 3;
 	h->num_losses = dccp_loss_count(s0, s3, n3);
 
+	*new_loss = 1;
 	return 1;
 }
The 'new_loss' parameter is completely redundant, since it duplicates the
return value of the function.


@@ -348,11 +354,14 @@
  *  operations when loss_count is greater than 0 after calling this function.
  */
 bool tfrc_sp_rx_congestion_event(struct tfrc_rx_hist *h,
-			      struct tfrc_loss_hist *lh,
-	 struct sk_buff *skb, const u64 ndp,
-  u32 (*first_li)(struct sock *), struct sock *sk)
+				 struct tfrc_loss_hist *lh,
+				 struct tfrc_loss_data *ld,
+				 struct sk_buff *skb, const u64 ndp,
+				 u32 (*first_li)(struct sock *),
+				 struct sock *sk)
 {
 	bool new_event = false;
+	bool new_loss = false;
 
 	if (tfrc_sp_rx_hist_duplicate(h, skb))
 		return 0;
@@ -365,12 +374,13 @@
 		__one_after_loss(h, skb, ndp);
 	} else if (h->loss_count != 2) {
 		DCCP_BUG("invalid loss_count %d", h->loss_count);
-	} else if (__two_after_loss(h, skb, ndp)) {
+	} else if (__two_after_loss(h, skb, ndp, &new_loss)) {
 		/*
 		* Update Loss Interval database and recycle RX records
 		*/
 		new_event = tfrc_sp_lh_interval_add(lh, h, first_li, sk,
 						dccp_hdr(skb)->dccph_ccval);
+		tfrc_sp_update_li_data(ld, h, skb, new_loss, new_event);
 		__three_after_loss(h);
 
 	} else if (dccp_data_packet(skb) && dccp_skb_is_ecn_ce(skb)) {
@@ -396,6 +406,8 @@
 		}
 	}
 
+	tfrc_sp_update_li_data(ld, h, skb, new_loss, new_event);
+
I don't understand why 'tfrc_sp_update_li_data' is called twice, one call seems
to be redundant. What it seems to be wanting to do is
	bool new_loss = false;

	//...
	} else if (__two_after_loss(h, skb, ndp)) {
		new_loss  = true;
		new_event = tfrc_sp_lh_interval_add(...);
		// ...
	}
	// ...
	tfrc_sp_update_li_data(ld, h, skb, new_loss, new_event);
	


--- dccp_tree_work5.orig/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval_sp.c
+++ dccp_tree_work5/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval_sp.c
 
+void tfrc_sp_ld_cleanup(struct tfrc_loss_data *ld)
+{
+	struct tfrc_loss_data_entry *next, *h = ld->head;
+
+	if (!h)
+		return;
+
+	while (h) {
+		next = h->next;
+		kmem_cache_free(tfrc_ld_slab, h);
+		h = next;
+	}
+
+	ld->head = NULL;
+	ld->counter = 0;
+}
The if(!h) statement is not needed above and prevents resetting 
the head/counter values.


+void tfrc_sp_ld_prepare_data(u8 loss_count, struct tfrc_loss_data *ld)
+{
+	u8 *li_ofs, *d_ofs;
+	struct tfrc_loss_data_entry *e;
+	u16 count;
+
+	li_ofs = &ld->loss_intervals_opts[0];
+	d_ofs = &ld->drop_opts[0];
+
+	count = 0;
+	e = ld->head;
+
+	*li_ofs = loss_count + 1;
+	li_ofs++;
+
+	while (e != NULL) {
+
+		if (count < TFRC_LOSS_INTERVALS_OPT_MAX_LENGTH) {
+			*li_ofs = ((htonl(e->lossless_length) & 0x00FFFFFF)<<8);
+			li_ofs += 3;
+			*li_ofs = ((e->ecn_nonce_sum&0x1) << 31) &
+				  (htonl((e->loss_length & 0x00FFFFFF))<<8);
==> This does not seem right: mixing htonl with non-htonl data, using '&' where
    probably '|' is meant.
+			li_ofs += 3;
+			*li_ofs = ((htonl(e->data_length) & 0x00FFFFFF)<<8);
==> I think you mean "e->data_length & 0xFFFFFF".

+			li_ofs += 3;
+		}
+
+		if (count < TFRC_DROP_OPT_MAX_LENGTH) {
+			*d_ofs = (htonl(e->drop_count) & 0x00FFFFFF)<<8;
+			d_ofs += 3;
+		}
+
+		if ((count >= TFRC_LOSS_INTERVALS_OPT_MAX_LENGTH) &&
+		    (count >= TFRC_DROP_OPT_MAX_LENGTH))
+			break;
==> This could be better handled using 'else' cases above, it seems the '&&' means '||'.
+
+		count++;
+		e = e->next;
+	}
+}

+void tfrc_sp_update_li_data(struct tfrc_loss_data *ld,
+			    struct tfrc_rx_hist *rh,
+			    struct sk_buff *skb,
+			    bool new_loss, bool new_event)
+{
+	struct tfrc_loss_data_entry *new, *h;
+
+	if (!dccp_data_packet(skb))
+		return;
+
+	if (ld->head == NULL) {
+		new = tfrc_ld_add_new(ld);
+		if (unlikely(new == NULL)) {
+			DCCP_CRIT("Cannot allocate new loss data registry.");
+			return;
+		}
+
+		if (new_loss) {
+			new->drop_count = rh->num_losses;
+			new->lossless_length = 1;
+			new->loss_length = rh->num_losses;
+
+			if (dccp_data_packet(skb))
+				new->data_length = 1;
+
+			if (dccp_data_packet(skb) && dccp_skb_is_ecn_ect1(skb))
+				new->ecn_nonce_sum = 1;
+			else
+				new->ecn_nonce_sum = 0;
+		} else {
+			new->drop_count = 0;
+			new->lossless_length = 1;
+			new->loss_length = 0;
+
+			if (dccp_data_packet(skb))
+				new->data_length = 1;
+
+			if (dccp_data_packet(skb) && dccp_skb_is_ecn_ect1(skb))
+				new->ecn_nonce_sum = 1;
+			else
+				new->ecn_nonce_sum = 0;
+		}
+
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (new_event) {
+		new = tfrc_ld_add_new(ld);
+		if (unlikely(new == NULL)) {
+			DCCP_CRIT("Cannot allocate new loss data registry. \
+					Cleaning up.");
+			tfrc_sp_ld_cleanup(ld);
+			return;
+		}
+
+		new->drop_count = rh->num_losses;
+		new->lossless_length = (ld->last_loss_count - rh->loss_count);
+		new->loss_length = rh->num_losses;
+
+		new->ecn_nonce_sum = 0;
+		new->data_length = 0;
+
+		while (ld->last_loss_count > rh->loss_count) {
+			ld->last_loss_count--;
+
+			if (ld->sto_is_data & (1 << (ld->last_loss_count))) {
+				new->data_length++;
+
+				if (ld->sto_ecn & (1 << (ld->last_loss_count)))
+					new->ecn_nonce_sum =
+						!new->ecn_nonce_sum;
+			}
+		}
+
+		return;
+	}
+
+	h = ld->head;
+
+	if (rh->loss_count > ld->last_loss_count) {
+		ld->last_loss_count = rh->loss_count;
+
+		if (dccp_data_packet(skb))
+			ld->sto_is_data |= (1 << (ld->last_loss_count - 1));
+
+		if (dccp_skb_is_ecn_ect1(skb))
+			ld->sto_ecn |= (1 << (ld->last_loss_count - 1));
+
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (new_loss) {
+		h->drop_count += rh->num_losses;
+		h->lossless_length = (ld->last_loss_count - rh->loss_count);
+		h->loss_length += h->lossless_length + rh->num_losses;
+
+		h->ecn_nonce_sum = 0;
+		h->data_length = 0;
+
+		while (ld->last_loss_count > rh->loss_count) {
+			ld->last_loss_count--;
+
+			if (ld->sto_is_data&(1 << (ld->last_loss_count))) {
+				h->data_length++;
+
+				if (ld->sto_ecn & (1 << (ld->last_loss_count)))
+					h->ecn_nonce_sum = !h->ecn_nonce_sum;
+			}
+		}
+
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (ld->last_loss_count > rh->loss_count) {
+		while (ld->last_loss_count > rh->loss_count) {
+			ld->last_loss_count--;
+
+			h->lossless_length++;
+
+			if (ld->sto_is_data & (1 << (ld->last_loss_count))) {
+				h->data_length++;
+
+				if (ld->sto_ecn & (1 << (ld->last_loss_count)))
+					h->ecn_nonce_sum = !h->ecn_nonce_sum;
+			}
+		}
+
+		return;
+	}
+
+	h->lossless_length++;
+
+	if (dccp_data_packet(skb)) {
+		h->data_length++;
+
+		if (dccp_skb_is_ecn_ect1(skb))
+			h->ecn_nonce_sum = !h->ecn_nonce_sum;
+	}
+}
Due to the 
       if (!dccp_data_packet(skb))
               return;
at the begin of the function, all subsequent 'dccp_data_packet(skb)' are unnecessary.
Almost every 'if' statement ends in 'return', this seems ad-hoc and could be reduced
by adding if-else-if-else-if..., which would probably also reduce the code duplication.


@@ -244,8 +463,11 @@
 	tfrc_lh_slab = kmem_cache_create("tfrc_sp_li_hist",
 					 sizeof(struct tfrc_loss_interval), 0,
 					 SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
+	tfrc_ld_slab = kmem_cache_create("tfrc_sp_li_data",
+					 sizeof(struct tfrc_loss_data_entry), 0,
+					 SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
 
-	if ((tfrc_lh_slab != NULL))
+	if ((tfrc_lh_slab != NULL) || (tfrc_ld_slab != NULL))
 		return 0;
 
 	if (tfrc_lh_slab != NULL) {
@@ -253,6 +475,11 @@
 		tfrc_lh_slab = NULL;
 	}
 
+	if (tfrc_ld_slab != NULL) {
+		kmem_cache_destroy(tfrc_ld_slab);
+		tfrc_ld_slab = NULL;
+	}
+
 	return -ENOBUFS;
 }
The condition above should be '&&', not '||'. Suggested alternative:

+	if (tfrc_lh_slab == NULL)
+		goto lh_failed;
+
+	tfrc_ld_slab = kmem_cache_create("tfrc_sp_li_data",
+					 sizeof(struct tfrc_loss_data_entry), 0,
+					 SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
+	if (tfrc_ld_slab != NULL)
+		return 0;
+
+	kmem_cache_destroy(tfrc_lh_slab);
+	tfrc_lh_slab = NULL;
+lh_failed:
+	return -ENOBUFS;
 }
 



--- dccp_tree_work5.orig/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval_sp.h
+++ dccp_tree_work5/net/dccp/ccids/lib/loss_interval_sp.h
@@ -70,13 +70,52 @@
 struct tfrc_rx_hist;
 #endif
 
+struct tfrc_loss_data_entry {
+	struct tfrc_loss_data_entry	*next;
+	u32				lossless_length:24;
+	u8				ecn_nonce_sum:1;
+	u32				loss_length:24;
+	u32				data_length:24;
+	u32				drop_count:24;
+};
According to RFC 4342, 8.6.1, Loss Length is a 23-bit number, i.e.
	u32				loss_length:23;




+#define TFRC_LOSS_INTERVALS_OPT_MAX_LENGTH	28
+#define TFRC_DROP_OPT_MAX_LENGTH		84
+#define TFRC_LI_OPT_SZ	\
+	(2 + TFRC_LOSS_INTERVALS_OPT_MAX_LENGTH*9)
+#define TFRC_DROPPED_OPT_SZ \
+	(1 + TFRC_DROP_OPT_MAX_LENGTH*3)
It would be good to have a reminder where the numbers come from, i.e.
 * the "28" comes from RFC 4342, 8.6
 * the "84" comes from RFC 5622, 8.7
 * the "9" again is from RFC 4342, 8.6
 * the 1 + TFRC_DROP_OPT_MAX_LENGTH*3 = DCCP_SINGLE_OPT_MAXLEN (linux/dccp.h)


+struct tfrc_loss_data {
+	struct tfrc_loss_data_entry	*head;
+	u16				counter;
+	u8				loss_intervals_opts[TFRC_LI_OPT_SZ];
+	u8				drop_opts[TFRC_DROPPED_OPT_SZ];
+	u8				last_loss_count;
+	u8				sto_ecn;
+	u8				sto_is_data;
+};



+static inline void tfrc_ld_init(struct tfrc_loss_data *ld)
+{
+	memset(ld, 0, sizeof(struct tfrc_loss_data));
+}
A tip from CodingStyle - using "sizeof(*ld)" will continue to work if there
are changes in the interface.


--- dccp_tree_work5.orig/net/dccp/dccp.h
+++ dccp_tree_work5/net/dccp/dccp.h
@@ -403,6 +403,16 @@
 	return (DCCP_SKB_CB(skb)->dccpd_ecn & INET_ECN_MASK) == INET_ECN_CE;
 }
 
+static inline bool dccp_skb_is_ecn_ect0(const struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+	return (DCCP_SKB_CB(skb)->dccpd_ecn & INET_ECN_MASK) == INET_ECN_ECT_0;
+}
+
+static inline bool dccp_skb_is_ecn_ect1(const struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+	return (DCCP_SKB_CB(skb)->dccpd_ecn & INET_ECN_MASK) == INET_ECN_ECT_0;
+}
The routines are not needed, because the dccpd_ecn field is (deliberately) only
2 bits wide. In the second case it should have been INET_ECN_ECT_1.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists