From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: [07/08] [TCP] Fix BIC congestion avoidance algorithm error Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:22:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20050405182202.GA11979@thunk.org> References: <20050405164539.GA17299@kroah.com> <20050405164758.GH17299@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, shemminger@osdl.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Greg KH Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050405164758.GH17299@kroah.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:47:59AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > While redoing BIC for the split up version, I discovered that the > existing 2.6.11 code doesn't really do binary search. It ends up > being just a slightly modified version of Reno. See attached graphs > to see the effect over simulated 1mbit environment. I hate to be a stickler for the rules, but does this really meet this criteria? - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a problem..." type thing.) If the congestion control alogirthm is "Reno-like", what is user-visible impact to users? There are OS's out there with TCP/IP stacks that are still using Reno, aren't there? Knowing the answer to the question, "How does this bug `bother' either users or network administrators?" would probably be really helpful. - Ted