[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180529170604.GD3788@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 14:06:04 -0300
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@...chi.franken.de>,
nhorman@...driver.com, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
lucien.xin@...il.com, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
syzkaller@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: not allow to set rto_min with a value below
200 msecs
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:03:46PM -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <
> marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> > - patch2 - fix rtx attack vector
> > - Add the floor value to rto_min to HZ/20 (which fits the values
> > that Michael shared on the other email)
>
> I would encourage allowing minimum RTO values down to 5ms, if the ACK
> policy in the receiver makes this feasible. Our experience is that in
> datacenter environments it can be advantageous to allow timer-based loss
> recoveries using timeout values as low as 5ms, e.g.:
Thanks Neal. On Xin's tests, the hearbeat timer becomes an issue at
~25ms already. Xin, can you share more details on the hw, which CPU
was used?
Anyway, what about we add a floor to rto_max too, so that RTO can
actually grow into something bigger that don't hog the CPU? Like:
rto_min floor = 5ms
rto_max floor = 50ms
Marcelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists