[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3A30BA3E-2586-4F12-B748-1CABFA0122EF@kau.se>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:11:25 +0100
From: Per Hurtig <per.hurtig@....se>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@....fi>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna Brunström <anna.brunstrom@....se>,
Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>,
Michael Welzl <michawe@....uio.no>,
Mohammad Rajiullah <mohammad.rajiullah@....se>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 net-next 1/2] tcp: RTO Restart (RTOR)
> 10 dec. 2015 kl. 16:37 skrev Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Per Hurtig <per.hurtig@....se> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08 Dec 2015, at 14:47, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 10:19 +0100, Per Hurtig wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static u32 tcp_unsent_pkts(const struct sock *sk, u32 ulimit)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb = tcp_send_head(sk);
>>>> + u32 pkts = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (skb)
>>>> + tcp_for_write_queue_from(skb, sk) {
>>>> + pkts += tcp_skb_pcount(skb);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ulimit && pkts >= ulimit)
>>>> + return ulimit;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return pkts;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering Yuchung feedback, have you looked at using an approximation
>>> instead ?
>>>
>>> (ie using tp->write_seq - tp->snd_nxt)
>>
>> Well, an approximation is rather “dangerous” as missing a single packet
>> could inhibit the desired behaviour. If looping is undesired, I think a
>> better solution is to actually *not* do this check at all and instead rely
>> solely on the
>>
>> tp->packets_out < TCP_RTORESTART_THRESH
>
> Yes, this simpler version seems very much preferable, IMHO. I agree
> that it does not seem worth the complexity to try to cover the kind of
> corner cases you outline.
>
> I would also suggest a TCP_RTORESTART_THRESH value higher than 4.
>
> In the ID at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-10 it says:
>
> The RECOMMENDED value of rrthresh is four, as this value will ensure
> that RTOR is only used when fast retransmit cannot be triggered.
>
> But my sense is that fast retransmit is often not triggered at
> in-flight counts of much higher than 4, due to drop-tail queues, TSO
> bursts, the initial IW10 being unpaced, etc. It would be interesting
> to see A/B experiments for a few TCP_RTORESTART_THRESH values, say, 4
> vs 10.
>
> neal
> --
> 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
Sure. One idea could also be to use the "reordering" value as a dynamic threshhold?
-- Per
--
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