[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100125.234557.00486980.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:45:57 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: damian@....rwth-aachen.de
Cc: denys@...p.net.lb, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: fix ICMP-RTO war
From: Damian Lukowski <damian@....rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:07:43 +0100
> @@ -530,7 +530,11 @@ static inline void tcp_bound_rto(const struct sock *sk)
>
> static inline u32 __tcp_set_rto(const struct tcp_sock *tp)
> {
> - return (tp->srtt >> 3) + tp->rttvar;
> + u32 rto = (tp->srtt >> 3) + tp->rttvar;
> + if (unlikely(rto < TCP_RTO_MIN))
> + return TCP_RTO_MIN;
> + else
> + return rto;
> }
The min RTO is now a runtime variable, TCP_RTO_MIN is merely the
default, so we should use tcp_rto_min() for obtaining that value.
And if we make this change, we might want to delete the comment in
tcp_set_rto() which claims:
/* NOTE: clamping at TCP_RTO_MIN is not required, current algo
* guarantees that rto is higher.
*/
tcp_bound_rto(sk);
And we have shown here at least one case where that is not true.
:-)
I've looked at Denys's traces and your analysis, and I still
can't figure out who the true culprit is that lets us get into
such a state that RTO is evaluated so low...
--
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