From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: ycheng@google.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, ncardwell@google.com,
edumazet@google.com, nanditad@google.com, sibanez@stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: allow TLP in ECN CWR
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:59:37 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171213.135937.1164115023745684468.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171211234253.102924-1-ycheng@google.com>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:42:53 -0800
> From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
>
> This patch enables tail loss probe in cwnd reduction (CWR) state
> to detect potential losses. Prior to this patch, since the sender
> uses PRR to determine the cwnd in CWR state, the combination of
> CWR+PRR plus tcp_tso_should_defer() could cause unnecessary stalls
> upon losses: PRR makes cwnd so gentle that tcp_tso_should_defer()
> defers sending wait for more ACKs. The ACKs may not come due to
> packet losses.
>
> Disallowing TLP when there is unused cwnd had the primary effect
> of disallowing TLP when there is TSO deferral, Nagle deferral,
> or we hit the rwin limit. Because basically every application
> write() or incoming ACK will cause us to run tcp_write_xmit()
> to see if we can send more, and then if we sent something we call
> tcp_schedule_loss_probe() to see if we should schedule a TLP. At
> that point, there are a few common reasons why some cwnd budget
> could still be unused:
>
> (a) rwin limit
> (b) nagle check
> (c) TSO deferral
> (d) TSQ
>
> For (d), after the next packet tx completion the TSQ mechanism
> will allow us to send more packets, so we don't really need a
> TLP (in practice it shouldn't matter whether we schedule one
> or not). But for (a), (b), (c) the sender won't send any more
> packets until it gets another ACK. But if the whole flight was
> lost, or all the ACKs were lost, then we won't get any more ACKs,
> and ideally we should schedule and send a TLP to get more feedback.
> In particular for a long time we have wanted some kind of timer for
> TSO deferral, and at least this would give us some kind of timer
>
> Reported-by: Steve Ibanez <sibanez@stanford.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Applied, thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-13 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-11 23:42 [PATCH net-next] tcp: allow TLP in ECN CWR Yuchung Cheng
2017-12-13 18:59 ` David Miller [this message]
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=20171213.135937.1164115023745684468.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=nanditad@google.com \
--cc=ncardwell@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sibanez@stanford.edu \
--cc=ycheng@google.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