[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111127.190120.2116987138205753451.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:01:20 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Cc: ycheng@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
nanditad@...gle.com, therbert@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] tcp: skip cwnd moderation in TCP_CA_Open in
tcp_try_to_open
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:47:13 +0200 (EET)
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
>
>> AFAIK cwnd moderation is to lower bursty drops not to discourage
>> (dsack) cheating. I believe the reason is the same in
>> tcp_try_to_open(). We are in common cases, e.g., loss-recovery, this
>> logic hurts performance.
>
> Quote from the patch description: "Senders were overriding cwnd values
> picked during an undo by calling tcp_moderate_cwnd()" ...so after all it
> has to do with undo being limited. IMHO only up to orig_cwnd/2+IW is safe
> due to cheating opportunities. Also FRTO uses orig_cwnd/2 due to same
> reason (it could do the +IW too but IIRC it is only /2 currently). What
> would be the safeguard there after this one is removed? I kind of see your
> point about this particular line being related to burst mitigation but on
> the same time the end result of removal is that undo becomes potentially
> much more aggressive.
I'm apply this patch to net-next now, but Neil and Yucheng are on the hook
to fully look into the issues Ilpo has raised.
Thanks.
--
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