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: <CAK6E8=dWLF+gRprxEbHRLnkRNHmf5sbedtv2Dt1jOqKPh7fmjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:58:20 -0700
From:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
To:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc:	Daniel Metz <dmetz@...um.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@....fi>,
	Van Jacobson <vanj@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: use RFC6298 compliant TCP RTO calculation

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net> wrote:
>
> * Yuchung Cheng | 2016-06-13 15:38:24 [-0700]:
>
> Hey Eric, Yuchung,
>
> regarding the missed mdev_max_us: internal communication problem. Daniel well
> respin a v2 removing the no longer required mdev_max_us.
>
> >Thanks for the patch. I also have long wanted to evaluate Linux's RTO vs RFC's.
> >
> >Since this is not a small change, and your patch is only tested on
> >emulation-based testbed AFAICT, I'd like to try your patch on Google
> >servers to get more data. But this would take a few days to setup &
> >collect.
>
> Great - no hurry! We tried hard to find any downsides of RFC 6298 so far
> without any result. If you have any special & concrete tests in mind: Daniel
> will test it!
>
> >Note that this paper
> >https://www.cs.helsinki.fi/research/iwtcp/papers/linuxtcp.pdf has
> >detailed rationale of current design (section 4). IMO having a "tight"
> >RTO is less necessary now after TLP. I am also testing a new set of
> >patches to install a quick reordering timer. But it's worth mentioning
> >the paper in the commit message.
>
> We had "difficulties" to find scenarios where the RTO kicks-in. For the
> majority of use cases duplicate ACKs triggers TCP retransmission. For bulk
> data transmissions almost 100% of retransmissions are triggered by duplicate
> ACKs (except connection teardown). TLP will reduce the requirement for RTO
> even further, also window probes helps sometimes. The use case we realized was
> sender limited, non-continuous flows where a RFC 6298 compliant implementation
> is better.
>
> Thank you Yuchung, we will add an reference in v2.
Sounds good. I will wait for v2 to do the experiment.
>
> Hagen