Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window

Stephen Hemminger
2010-05-26T05:09:01Z

On Tue, 25 May 2010 22:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com> wrote:

> This patch allows an application to set the TCP congestion window
> for a connection through a socket option. The maximum value that
> may set is specified in a sysctl value. When the sysctl is set to
> zero, the default value, the socket option is disabled.
>
> The socket option is most useful to set the initial congestion
> window for a connection to a larger value than the default in
> order to improve latency. This socket option would typically be
> used by an "intelligent" application which might have better knowledge
> than the kernel as to what an appropriate initial congestion window is.
>
> One use of this might be with an application which maintains per
> client path characteristics. This could allow setting the congestion
> window more precisely than which could be achieved through the
> route command.
>
> A second use of this might be to reduce the number of simultaneous
> connections that a client might open to the server; for instance
> when a web browser opens multiple connections to a server. With multiple
> connections the aggregate congestion window is larger than that of a
> single connecton (num_conns * cwnd), this effectively can be used to
> circumvent slowstart and improve latency. With this socket option, a
> single connection with a large initial congestion window could be used,
> which retains the latency properties of multiple connections but
> nicely reducing # of connections (load) on the network.
>
> The systctl to enable and control this feature is
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_user_cwnd_max
>
> The socket option call would be:
>
> setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_CWND, &val, sizeof (val))
>
> where val is the congestion window in # MSS.
>

The IETF TCP maintainers already think Linux TCP allows unsafe
operation, this will just allow more possible misuse and prove
their argument. Until/unless this behavior was approved by
a wider set of research, I don't think it should be accepted at
this time.

--