From: Matija Glavinic Pecotic <matija.glavinic-pecotic.ext@nsn.com>
To: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nsn.com>,
ext Dongsheng Song <dongsheng.song@gmail.com>,
ext Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: sctp: Fix a_rwnd/rwnd management to reflect real state of the receiver'
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:55:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <534E6FC4.8020706@nsn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <534E473E.20303@nsn.com>
Hello,
On 16.04.2014 11:02, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> Hi Dongsheng!
>
> On 16/04/14 10:39, ext Dongsheng Song wrote:
>> >From my testing, netperf throughput from 600 Mbit/s drop to 6 Mbit/s,
>> the penalty is 99 %.
>
> The question was, do you see this as a problem of the new rwnd algorithm?
> If yes, how exactly? The algorithm actually has no preference to any amount of data.
> It was fine-tuned before to serve as congestion control algorithm, but this should
> be located elsewhere. Perhaps, indeed, a re-use of congestion control modules from
> TCP would be possible...
Its also worth to note that sctp specifies rfc2581 for congestion
control. TCP obsoleted that one in favor of 5681.
@Vlad, after Alexanders comment, it seems to be that you were referring
to performance penalty. At first, I understood you refer to some penalty
in rwnd calculation against buffer/rwnd value/something else. Thats why
I asked that.
What also might be is that we are hitting SWS. I remember us observing
some scenarios in which SWS is broken, new rwnd might have triggered it
fully.
In any case, after some thought in the meantime, I'm pretty much sure
that we need to improve congestion control and that new rwnd calculation
is correct approach.
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sctp/msg03308.html
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Matija Glavinic Pecotic
>> <matija.glavinic-pecotic.ext@nsn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Vlad,
>>>
>>> On 04/14/2014 09:57 PM, ext Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>>> The base approach is sound. The idea is to calculate rwnd based
>>>> on receiver buffer available. The algorithm chosen however, is
>>>> gives a much higher preference to small data and penalizes large
>>>> data transfers. We need to figure our something else here..
>>>
>>> I don't follow you here. Could you please explain what do you see as penalty?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Matija
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-16 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-14 19:45 [PATCH net] Revert "net: sctp: Fix a_rwnd/rwnd management to reflect real state of the receiver's bu Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-14 19:57 ` [PATCH net] Revert "net: sctp: Fix a_rwnd/rwnd management to reflect real state of the receiver' Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-16 6:57 ` Matija Glavinic Pecotic
2014-04-16 8:39 ` Dongsheng Song
2014-04-16 9:02 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2014-04-16 11:55 ` Matija Glavinic Pecotic [this message]
2014-04-16 13:32 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-16 18:50 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-16 19:05 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-16 19:24 ` Matija Glavinic Pecotic
2014-04-16 19:47 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-04-21 19:12 ` Matija Glavinic Pecotic
2014-04-14 20:48 ` David Miller
2014-04-15 8:46 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2014-04-15 8:57 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-15 6:43 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2014-04-15 7:08 ` Daniel Borkmann
2014-04-15 14:27 ` Butler, Peter
2014-04-16 18:36 ` Vlad Yasevich
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-12-23 7:13 Roger Nyberg
2015-12-23 13:18 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=534E6FC4.8020706@nsn.com \
--to=matija.glavinic-pecotic.ext@nsn.com \
--cc=alexander.sverdlin@nsn.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dborkman@redhat.com \
--cc=dongsheng.song@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox