netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: use RFC6298 compliant TCP RTO calculation

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1465852766.7945.177.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:19:26 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Metz <dmetz@...um.de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: use RFC6298 compliant TCP RTO calculation

On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 22:45 +0200, Daniel Metz wrote:
> This patch adjusts Linux RTO calculation to be RFC6298 Standard
> compliant. MinRTO is no longer added to the computed RTO, RTO damping
> and overestimation are decreased.
> 
> In RFC 6298 Standard TCP Retransmission Timeout (RTO) calculation the
> calculated RTO is rounded up to the Minimum RTO (MinRTO), if it is
> less. The Linux implementation as a discrepancy to the Standard
> basically adds the defined MinRTO to the calculated RTO. When
> comparing both approaches, the Linux calculation seems to perform
> worse for sender limited TCP flows like Telnet, SSH or constant bit
> rate encoded transmissions, especially for Round Trip Times (RTT) of
> 50ms to 800ms.
> 
> Compared to the Linux implementation the RFC 6298 proposed RTO
> calculation performs better and more precise in adapting to current
> network characteristics. Extensive measurements for bulk data did not
> show a negative impact of the adjusted calculation.
> 
> Exemplary performance comparison for sender-limited-flows:
> 
> - Rate: 10Mbit/s
> - Delay: 200ms, Delay Variation: 10ms
> - Time between each scheduled segment: 1s
> - Amount Data Segments: 300
> - Mean of 11 runs
> 
>          Mean Response Waiting Time [milliseconds]
> 
> PER [%] |   0.5      1    1.5      2      3      5      7     10
> --------+-------------------------------------------------------
> old     | 206.4  208.6  218.0  218.6  227.2  249.3  274.7  308.2
> new     | 203.9  206.0  207.0  209.9  217.3  225.6  238.7  259.1
> 
> 
> Detailed Analysis:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pKmPfnQb6fDK4qpiNVkN8cQyGE4wYDZukcuZfR-BnnM/
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Metz <dmetz@...um.de>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
> Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
> ---
> 
> We removed outdated comments in the code, though more cleanup may required.
> 

It seems you left mdev_max_us ?