[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADVnQynFS6g_Tr287p9U1u5p70HjOprkD0N9Ep_1p3v-Kb04zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:11:50 -0500
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] Revert "dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event"
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> Neal Cardwell says:
> If I am reading the code correctly, then I would have two concerns:
> 1) Has that been tested? That seems like an extremely dramatic
> decrease in cwnd. For example, if the cwnd is 80, and there are 40
> ACKs, and half the ACKs are ECE marked, then my back-of-the-envelope
> calculations seem to suggest that after just 11 ACKs the cwnd would be
> down to a minimal value of 2 [..]
> 2) That seems to contradict another passage in the draft [..] where it
> sazs:
> Just as specified in [RFC3168], DCTCP does not react to congestion
> indications more than once for every window of data.
>
> Neal is right. Fortunately we don't have to complicate this by testing
> vs. current rtt estimate, we can just revert the patch.
>
> Normal stack already handles this for us: receiving ACKs with ECE
> set causes a call to tcp_enter_cwr(), from there on the ssthresh gets
> adjusted and prr will take care of cwnd adjustment.
>
> Fixes: 4780566784b396 ("dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event")
> Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> ---
Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Looks good to me. :-)
Thanks,
neal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists