From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/5] tcp_bbr: cut pacing rate only if filled pipe
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:15:35 -0700
Message-ID: <20170714161535.66c5110a@xeon-e3>
References: <20170714214925.30720-1-ncardwell@google.com>
        <20170714153646.1cdc5f00@xeon-e3>
        <CADVnQykrv=U=jXa2SeOun8yGZbYJ4zoLvek-_GEo7sN02PsZLg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:36789 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751004AbdGNXPo (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:15:44 -0400
Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q86so51673023pfl.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQykrv=U=jXa2SeOun8yGZbYJ4zoLvek-_GEo7sN02PsZLg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:54:02 -0400
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:49:21 -0400
> > Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> In bbr_set_pacing_rate(), which decides whether to cut the pacing
> >> rate, there was some code that considered exiting STARTUP to be
> >> equivalent to the notion of filling the pipe (i.e.,
> >> bbr_full_bw_reached()). Specifically, as the code was structured,
> >> exiting STARTUP and going into PROBE_RTT could cause us to cut the
> >> pacing rate down to something silly and low, based on whatever
> >> bandwidth samples we've had so far, when it's possible that all of
> >> them have been small app-limited bandwidth samples that are not
> >> representative of the bandwidth available in the path. (The code was
> >> correct at the time it was written, but the state machine changed
> >> without this spot being adjusted correspondingly.)
> >>
> >> Fixes: 0f8782ea1497 ("tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control")
> >> Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>  
> >

You are correct, these look more like bug fixes. I was a little concerned
that the changes would be visible but they really aren't user visible.

Should they go to stable as well?