| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20120806.141451.191138983583413911.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:14:51 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: ncardwell@...gle.com Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: ecn: dont delay ACKS after CE From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:07:08 -0400 > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> >> >> While playing with CoDel and ECN marking, I discovered a >> non optimal behavior of receiver of CE (Congestion Encountered) >> segments. >> >> In pathological cases, sender has reduced its cwnd to low values, >> and receiver delays its ACK (by 40 ms). >> >> While RFC 3168 6.1.3 (The TCP Receiver) doesn't explicitly recommend >> to send immediate ACKS, we believe its better to not delay ACKS, because >> a CE segment should give same signal than a dropped segment, and its >> quite important to reduce RTT to give ECE/CWR signals as fast as >> possible. >> >> Note we already call tcp_enter_quickack_mode() from TCP_ECN_check_ce() >> if we receive a retransmit, for the same reason. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> >> Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> > > Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> Applied, 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