From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [RFC] TCP congestion schedulers Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:59:02 -0300 Message-ID: <39e6f6c705031808599bc3b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <421CF5E5.1060606@ev-en.org> <20050310182629.1eab09ec.davem@davemloft.net> <20050311120054.4bbf675a@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050311201011.360c00da.davem@davemloft.net> <20050314151726.532af90d@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <20050317201231.6d575e0b.davem@davemloft.net> <39e6f6c705031804531c2c557f@mail.gmail.com> <1111153298.1146.35.camel@jzny.localdomain> <39e6f6c7050318081371238254@mail.gmail.com> <20050318084555.39638ee9@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> Reply-To: acme@conectiva.com.br Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, "David S. Miller" , baruch@ev-en.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20050318084555.39638ee9@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:45:55 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:13:45 -0300 > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > On 18 Mar 2005 08:43:04 -0500, jamal wrote: > > > On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 07:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm also not so religious anymore about retaining the existing > > > > > sysctl functionality to enable/disable ca algs. > > > > > > > > I haven't looked over this patch completely, so I may well be saying something > > > > stupid, but if possible, please don't use the tcp/TCP prefix where you > > > > think this > > > > code can be used by other inet transport protocols, such as DCCP. > > > > > > Yes, that would be really nice. > > > > > > Also heres another thought: if we can have multiple sockets, destined to > > > the same receiver, to share the same congestion state. This is motivated > > > from the CM idea the MIT folks were preaching a few years ago - look at > > > RFC 3124 and the MIT website which had some crude linux code back then > > > as well as tons of papers. I think > > > that scheme may need to hook up to tc to work well. > > > > The DCCP drafts mention that they choose not to require the CM, but yes, it is > > something to consider anyway, its interesting stuff. > > > > Again without looking at the patch fully, the tcp_sock passing to this > > infrastructure > > would have to go away and instead chunk out the needed members out of tcp_sock > > and into a congestion_info struct that would be a member of both tcp_sock and > > dccp_sock, and this one would be the one passed to this infrastructure. > > > > In the end we may well give Sally et al some new CCIDs for free :-P > > Let's abstract it for TCP first, then as a later patch reduce the scope and > generalize it. Fine with me, just wanted to trow these thoughts so that when working on it you think about it :-) -- - Arnaldo