[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170625.144430.1405311499377880024.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 14:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
nhorman@...driver.com, vyasevich@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] RFC 4960 Errata fixes
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:39 -0300
> This patchset contains fixes for 4 Errata topics from
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-01
> Namely, sections:
> 3.12. Order of Adjustments of partial_bytes_acked and cwnd
> 3.22. Increase of partial_bytes_acked in Congestion Avoidance
> 3.26. CWND Increase in Congestion Avoidance Phase
> 3.27. Refresh of cwnd and ssthresh after Idle Period
>
> Tests performed with netperf using net namespaces, with drop rates at
> 0%, 0.5% and 1% by netem, IPv4 and IPv6, 10 runs for each combination.
> I couldn't spot differences on the stats. With and without these patches
> the results vary in a similar way in terms of throughput and
> retransmissions.
>
> Tests with 20ms delay and 20ms delay + drops at 0.5% and 1% also had
> results in a similar way, no noticeable difference.
>
> Looking at cwnd, it was possible to notice slightly lower values being
> used while still sustaining same throughput profile.
Series applied, thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists