[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTiku9KTHCm59cib5KY8mz0ewSLsHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 23:42:30 -0700
From: tsuna <tsunanet@...il.com>
To: Alexander Zimmermann <alexander.zimmermann@...sys.rwth-aachen.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
kaber@...sh.net, hagen@...u.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Alexander Zimmermann
<alexander.zimmermann@...sys.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> If you set the initRTO=0.1s, it's good for me but bad for the rest of the
> world. That's the difference.
>
> Or do you want to implement a lower barrier of 1sec so that you can ensure
> that nobody set the initRTO lower than 1s?
Oh, I see. Yes, there is a lower bound (and an upper bound) on what
values the kernel will accept as initRTO. In the patch "Implement a
two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02" above, I re-used
TCP_RTO_MIN and TCP_RTO_MAX in net/ipv4/sysctl_net_ipv4.c in order to
prevent users from setting a minRTO that's outside this range. They
are defined as follows in tcp.h:
#define TCP_RTO_MAX ((unsigned)(120*HZ))
#define TCP_RTO_MIN ((unsigned)(HZ/5))
So we're talking about a [200ms ; 120s] range no matter what.
--
Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
Software Engineer @ www.StumbleUpon.com
--
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