From: "Banerjee, Debabrata" <dbanerje@akamai.com>
To: John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
Cc: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Fix RFC reference in comment
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:17:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D0DB041A.44371%dbanerje@akamai.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABrhC0m=aPO=OcfK_gTusHz7CU9OUeXAHoqUDaVTGLDiQnL56Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/13/15, 5:01 PM, "John Heffner" <johnwheffner@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Banerjee, Debabrata
><dbanerje@akamai.com> wrote:
>> On 1/13/15, 4:36 PM, "Yuchung Cheng" <ycheng@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>RFC2861 resets the cwnd like in RFC2581, but the rest of the code
>>>implements RFC2861. So I think the current comment is fine.
>>
>>
>> No RFC2861 is an experimental RFC that's implemented in
>> tcp_cwnd_application_limited(). RFC2861 Recommends reducing the cwnd by
>> averaging the current cwnd and the used cwnd as the new cwnd.
>>
>>
>> RFC2581 4.1 Says to set cwnd to initial cwnd if more than one rto has
>> passed since the last send. This is what is implemented in the function
>> above.
>
>Look at the code a little closer -- it's decaying cwnd based on number
>of timeouts as described in 2861, not resetting to IW as recommended
>in 2581.
>
> -John
You're right it's not RFC2581 I was partially misled by the comment
(reset/restart window), but it doesn't appear to be doing what rfc2861 3.2
says either:
For i=1 To (tcpnow - T_last)/RTO
win = min(cwnd, receiver's declared max window)
cwnd = max(win/2, MSS)
Versus:
u32 restart_cwnd = tcp_init_cwnd(tp, dst);
restart_cwnd = min(restart_cwnd, cwnd);
while ((delta -= inet_csk(sk)->icsk_rto) > 0 && cwnd > restart_cwnd)
cwnd >>= 1;
tp->snd_cwnd = max(cwnd, restart_cwnd);
It's not using receiver window, it's using cwnd/init_cwnd, it should at
least be using tp->snd_wnd, no?.
I stumbled onto this because it looks like tcp_cwnd_application_limited()
doesn't execute when it should, because tp->snd_cwnd_stamp is being
touched much more often than in rfc2861 3.2. Something seems not right
here...
-Debabrata
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-13 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-13 21:10 [PATCH] tcp: Fix RFC reference in comment Debabrata Banerjee
2015-01-13 21:36 ` Yuchung Cheng
2015-01-13 21:42 ` Banerjee, Debabrata
2015-01-13 22:01 ` John Heffner
2015-01-13 23:17 ` Banerjee, Debabrata [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=D0DB041A.44371%dbanerje@akamai.com \
--to=dbanerje@akamai.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=johnwheffner@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--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