From: Damian Lukowski <damian@tvk.rwth-aachen.de>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][v2] tcp: fix ICMP-RTO war
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:58:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B708913.906@tvk.rwth-aachen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.u7s6j0qup498uc@nexus>
Damian Lukowski schrieb:
> Am 01.02.2010, 08:33 Uhr, schrieb David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
>
>> From: Damian Lukowski <damian@tvk.rwth-aachen.de>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:15:51 +0100
>>
>>> This patches fix the current RTO calculation routine, when
>>> srtt and rttvar are zero, yielding an RTO of zero
>>> Under some circumstances, TCPs srtt and rttvar are zero,
>>> yielding a calculated RTO of zero.
>>> This is particularly unfortunate for ICMP based RTO recalculation
>>> as introduced in f1ecd5d9e736660 (Revert Backoff [v3]: Revert RTO
>>> on ICMP destination unreachable), as it results in RTO retransmission
>>> flooding.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Ilpo Jarvinen for providing debug patches and to
>>> Denys Fedoryshchenko for reporting and testing.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Damian Lukowski <damian@tvk.rwth-aachen.de>
>>
>> I still haven't seen a detailed enough analysis of why these
>> tiny RTOs can come to exist in the first place.
>>
>> Please show me a list of events, function by function, the value of
>> relevant variables and per-socket TCP state, in the TCP stack, that
>> show how this ends up happening.
>>
>> Thanks for all of your work on this so far.
>
> I might have figured it out, but could not verify it, so maybe you can
> comment my thought.
>
> When a listening TCP receives a SYN, it will send a SYN+ACK
> and wait for an ACK to complete the handshake.
> Look at tcp_rcv_state_process::step 5::case SYN_RECV::acceptable
> and the code after the comment "tcp_ack considers this ACK as duplicate
> and does not calculate rtt".
>
> If the connecting client has disabled timestamps, the rtt statistics
> won't be updated here, while the state is changed above.
> I printk'ed at the very end of TCP_SYN_RECV and got the following:
> state 1 (ESTABLISHED), srtt 0, rttvar 0.
>
> So my suspicion is: If connectivity breaks right after a listening TCP
> has completed the handshake without timestamps, and the listening TCP
> sends data after establishing the connection, we will get the observed
> behaviour.
Just verified that by dropping pure ACKs coming from the originally
listening TCP using iptables.
Regards
Damian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-08 21:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-29 22:15 [PATCH 0/3][v2] tcp: fix ICMP-RTO war Damian Lukowski
2010-02-01 7:33 ` David Miller
2010-02-08 12:34 ` Damian Lukowski
2010-02-08 21:58 ` Damian Lukowski [this message]
2010-02-09 12:37 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2010-02-09 22:29 ` Damian Lukowski
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=4B708913.906@tvk.rwth-aachen.de \
--to=damian@tvk.rwth-aachen.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).