Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tcp: default RACK loss recovery

[hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1830 bytes --]

On 05/17/18 at 03:45P, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 16:40:09 -0700
> 
> > This patch set implements the features correspond to the
> > draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-03 version of the RACK draft.
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-tcpm-update-on-tcp-rack-00
> > 
> > 1. SACK: implement equivalent DUPACK threshold heuristic in RACK to
> >    replace existing RFC6675 recovery (tcp_mark_head_lost).
> > 
> > 2. Non-SACK: simplify RFC6582 NewReno implementation
> > 
> > 3. RTO: apply RACK's time-based approach to avoid spuriouly
> >    marking very recently sent packets lost.
> > 
> > 4. with (1)(2)(3), make RACK the exclusive fast recovery mechanism to
> >    mark losses based on time on S/ACK. Tail loss probe and F-RTO remain
> >    enabled by default as complementary mechanisms to send probes in
> >    CA_Open and CA_Loss states. The probes would solicit S/ACKs to trigger
> >    RACK time-based loss detection.
> > 
> > All Google web and internal servers have been running RACK-only mode
> > (4) for a while now. a/b experiments indicate RACK/TLP on average
> > reduces recovery latency by 10% compared to RFC6675. RFC6675
> > is default-off now but can be enabled by disabling RACK (sysctl
> > net.ipv4.tcp_recovery=0) for unseen issues.
> 
> Series applied.
> 
> These patches, the design of the ordering of changes in the patch series,
> and the commit messages themselves were more than a pleasure to read.
> 
> Really, this patch series is a great model for others who want to
> improve the quality and reviewability of their submissions.

Second that as a maintainer of a non-linux stack. Thanks a ton for such
clear and crisp commit-log messages along with the actual changes.

Cheers,
Hiren

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 603 bytes --]