* [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
@ 2022-12-05 17:59 Weiping Zhang
2022-12-05 18:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-12-05 19:15 ` Neal Cardwell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Weiping Zhang @ 2022-12-05 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edumazet, davem, yoshfuji, dsahern, kuba, pabeni; +Cc: netdev, zwp10758
From the comments we can see that, rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new,
but there is an mistake,
m -= (srtt >> 3);
srtt += m;
explain:
m -= (srtt >> 3); //use t stands for new m
t = m - srtt/8;
srtt = srtt + t
= srtt + m - srtt/8
= srtt 7/8 + m
Test code:
#include<stdio.h>
#define u32 unsigned int
static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
{
long m = mrtt_us;
u32 old = srtt;
m -= (srtt >> 3);
srtt += m;
printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
}
static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
{
long m = mrtt_us;
u32 old = srtt;
m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
srtt += m;
printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
u32 srtt = 100;
long mrtt_us = 90;
test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
return 0;
}
./a.out
test_old old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 178
test_new old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 98
Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 0640453fce54..0242bb31e1ce 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
* that VJ failed to avoid. 8)
*/
if (srtt != 0) {
- m -= (srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
+ m = (m - srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
srtt += m; /* rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new */
if (m < 0) {
m = -m; /* m is now abs(error) */
@@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
if (m > 0)
m >>= 3;
} else {
- m -= (tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
+ m = (m - tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
}
tp->mdev_us += m; /* mdev = 3/4 mdev + 1/4 new */
if (tp->mdev_us > tp->mdev_max_us) {
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
@ 2022-12-05 18:07 Weiping Zhang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Weiping Zhang @ 2022-12-05 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edumazet, davem, yoshfuji, dsahern, kuba, pabeni; +Cc: netdev, zwp10758
From the comments we can see that, rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new,
but there is an mistake,
m -= (srtt >> 3);
srtt += m;
explain:
m -= (srtt >> 3); //use t stands for new m
t = m - srtt/8;
srtt = srtt + t
= srtt + m - srtt/8
= srtt 7/8 + m
Test code:
#include<stdio.h>
#define u32 unsigned int
static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
{
long m = mrtt_us;
u32 old = srtt;
m -= (srtt >> 3);
srtt += m;
printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
}
static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
{
long m = mrtt_us;
u32 old = srtt;
m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
srtt += m;
printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
u32 srtt = 100;
long mrtt_us = 90;
test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
return 0;
}
./a.out
test_old old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 178
test_new old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 98
Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 0640453fce54..0242bb31e1ce 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
* that VJ failed to avoid. 8)
*/
if (srtt != 0) {
- m -= (srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
+ m = (m - srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
srtt += m; /* rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new */
if (m < 0) {
m = -m; /* m is now abs(error) */
@@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
if (m > 0)
m >>= 3;
} else {
- m -= (tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
+ m = (m - tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
}
tp->mdev_us += m; /* mdev = 3/4 mdev + 1/4 new */
if (tp->mdev_us > tp->mdev_max_us) {
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
2022-12-05 17:59 Weiping Zhang
@ 2022-12-05 18:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-12-05 19:15 ` Neal Cardwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2022-12-05 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Weiping Zhang; +Cc: davem, yoshfuji, dsahern, kuba, pabeni, netdev, zwp10758
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 6:59 PM Weiping Zhang
<zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> wrote:
>
> From the comments we can see that, rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new,
> but there is an mistake,
>
> m -= (srtt >> 3);
> srtt += m;
>
> explain:
> m -= (srtt >> 3); //use t stands for new m
> t = m - srtt/8;
>
> srtt = srtt + t
> = srtt + m - srtt/8
> = srtt 7/8 + m
>
> Test code:
>
> #include<stdio.h>
>
> #define u32 unsigned int
>
> static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
> {
> long m = mrtt_us;
> u32 old = srtt;
>
> m -= (srtt >> 3);
> srtt += m;
>
> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
> }
>
> static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
> {
> long m = mrtt_us;
> u32 old = srtt;
>
> m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
> srtt += m;
>
> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> u32 srtt = 100;
> long mrtt_us = 90;
>
> test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
> test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> ./a.out
> test_old old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 178
> test_new old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 98
>
> Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index 0640453fce54..0242bb31e1ce 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
> * that VJ failed to avoid. 8)
> */
> if (srtt != 0) {
> - m -= (srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
> + m = (m - srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
> srtt += m; /* rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new */
> if (m < 0) {
> m = -m; /* m is now abs(error) */
> @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
> if (m > 0)
> m >>= 3;
> } else {
> - m -= (tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
> + m = (m - tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
> }
> tp->mdev_us += m; /* mdev = 3/4 mdev + 1/4 new */
> if (tp->mdev_us > tp->mdev_max_us) {
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Sorry, this makes no sense to me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
2022-12-05 17:59 Weiping Zhang
2022-12-05 18:27 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2022-12-05 19:15 ` Neal Cardwell
2022-12-06 9:11 ` Jakub Sitnicki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Neal Cardwell @ 2022-12-05 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Weiping Zhang
Cc: edumazet, davem, yoshfuji, dsahern, kuba, pabeni, netdev,
zwp10758
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 1:02 PM Weiping Zhang
<zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> wrote:
>
> From the comments we can see that, rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new,
> but there is an mistake,
>
> m -= (srtt >> 3);
> srtt += m;
>
> explain:
> m -= (srtt >> 3); //use t stands for new m
> t = m - srtt/8;
>
> srtt = srtt + t
> = srtt + m - srtt/8
> = srtt 7/8 + m
>
> Test code:
>
> #include<stdio.h>
>
> #define u32 unsigned int
>
> static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
> {
> long m = mrtt_us;
> u32 old = srtt;
>
> m -= (srtt >> 3);
> srtt += m;
>
> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
> }
>
> static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
> {
> long m = mrtt_us;
> u32 old = srtt;
>
> m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
> srtt += m;
>
> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> u32 srtt = 100;
> long mrtt_us = 90;
>
> test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
> test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> ./a.out
> test_old old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 178
> test_new old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 98
>
> Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com>
Please note that this analysis and this test program do not take
account of the fact that srtt in the Linux kernel is maintained in a
form where it is shifted left by 3 bits, to maintain a 3-bit
fractional part. That is why at first glance it would seem there is a
missing multiplication of the new sample by 1/8. By not shifting the
new sample when it is added to srtt, the new sample is *implicitly*
multiplied by 1/8.
> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index 0640453fce54..0242bb31e1ce 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
> * that VJ failed to avoid. 8)
> */
> if (srtt != 0) {
> - m -= (srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
> + m = (m - srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
> srtt += m; /* rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new */
> if (m < 0) {
> m = -m; /* m is now abs(error) */
> @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
> if (m > 0)
> m >>= 3;
> } else {
> - m -= (tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
> + m = (m - tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
> }
> tp->mdev_us += m; /* mdev = 3/4 mdev + 1/4 new */
> if (tp->mdev_us > tp->mdev_max_us) {
> --
> 2.34.1
AFAICT this proposed patch does not change the behavior of the code
but merely expresses the same operations with slightly different
syntax. Am I missing something? :-)
thanks,
neal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
2022-12-05 19:15 ` Neal Cardwell
@ 2022-12-06 9:11 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-12-10 13:35 ` Weiping Zhang
2022-12-10 17:45 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Sitnicki @ 2022-12-06 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neal Cardwell
Cc: Weiping Zhang, edumazet, davem, yoshfuji, dsahern, kuba, pabeni,
netdev, zwp10758
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:15 PM -05, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 1:02 PM Weiping Zhang
> <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> wrote:
>>
>> From the comments we can see that, rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new,
>> but there is an mistake,
>>
>> m -= (srtt >> 3);
>> srtt += m;
>>
>> explain:
>> m -= (srtt >> 3); //use t stands for new m
>> t = m - srtt/8;
>>
>> srtt = srtt + t
>> = srtt + m - srtt/8
>> = srtt 7/8 + m
>>
>> Test code:
>>
>> #include<stdio.h>
>>
>> #define u32 unsigned int
>>
>> static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
>> {
>> long m = mrtt_us;
>> u32 old = srtt;
>>
>> m -= (srtt >> 3);
>> srtt += m;
>>
>> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
>> }
>>
>> static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
>> {
>> long m = mrtt_us;
>> u32 old = srtt;
>>
>> m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
>> srtt += m;
>>
>> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
>> }
>>
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> u32 srtt = 100;
>> long mrtt_us = 90;
>>
>> test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
>> test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> ./a.out
>> test_old old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 178
>> test_new old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 98
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com>
>
> Please note that this analysis and this test program do not take
> account of the fact that srtt in the Linux kernel is maintained in a
> form where it is shifted left by 3 bits, to maintain a 3-bit
> fractional part. That is why at first glance it would seem there is a
> missing multiplication of the new sample by 1/8. By not shifting the
> new sample when it is added to srtt, the new sample is *implicitly*
> multiplied by 1/8.
Nifty. And it's documented.
struct tcp_sock {
…
u32 srtt_us; /* smoothed round trip time << 3 in usecs */
Thanks for the hint.
>> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>> index 0640453fce54..0242bb31e1ce 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>> @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
>> * that VJ failed to avoid. 8)
>> */
>> if (srtt != 0) {
>> - m -= (srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
>> + m = (m - srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
>> srtt += m; /* rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new */
>> if (m < 0) {
>> m = -m; /* m is now abs(error) */
>> @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
>> if (m > 0)
>> m >>= 3;
>> } else {
>> - m -= (tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
>> + m = (m - tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
>> }
>> tp->mdev_us += m; /* mdev = 3/4 mdev + 1/4 new */
>> if (tp->mdev_us > tp->mdev_max_us) {
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>
> AFAICT this proposed patch does not change the behavior of the code
> but merely expresses the same operations with slightly different
> syntax. Am I missing something? :-)
I've been wondering about that too. There's a change hiding behind
operator precedence. Would be better expressed with explicitly placed
parenthesis:
m = (m - srtt) >> 3; /* m is now error in rtt est */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
2022-12-06 9:11 ` Jakub Sitnicki
@ 2022-12-10 13:35 ` Weiping Zhang
2022-12-10 17:45 ` Eric Dumazet
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Weiping Zhang @ 2022-12-10 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Sitnicki
Cc: Neal Cardwell, Weiping Zhang, edumazet, davem, yoshfuji, dsahern,
kuba, pabeni, netdev
Sorry to reply to late caused by bad cold,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 5:29 PM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:15 PM -05, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 1:02 PM Weiping Zhang
> > <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From the comments we can see that, rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new,
> >> but there is an mistake,
> >>
> >> m -= (srtt >> 3);
> >> srtt += m;
> >>
> >> explain:
> >> m -= (srtt >> 3); //use t stands for new m
> >> t = m - srtt/8;
> >>
> >> srtt = srtt + t
> >> = srtt + m - srtt/8
> >> = srtt 7/8 + m
> >>
> >> Test code:
> >>
> >> #include<stdio.h>
> >>
> >> #define u32 unsigned int
> >>
> >> static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
> >> {
> >> long m = mrtt_us;
> >> u32 old = srtt;
> >>
> >> m -= (srtt >> 3);
> >> srtt += m;
> >>
> >> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
> >> {
> >> long m = mrtt_us;
> >> u32 old = srtt;
> >>
> >> m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
> >> srtt += m;
> >>
> >> printf("%s old_srtt: %u mrtt_us: %ld new_srtt: %u\n", __func__, old, mrtt_us, srtt);
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >> {
> >> u32 srtt = 100;
> >> long mrtt_us = 90;
> >>
> >> test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
> >> test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> ./a.out
> >> test_old old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 178
> >> test_new old_srtt: 100 mrtt_us: 90 new_srtt: 98
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com>
> >
> > Please note that this analysis and this test program do not take
> > account of the fact that srtt in the Linux kernel is maintained in a
> > form where it is shifted left by 3 bits, to maintain a 3-bit
> > fractional part. That is why at first glance it would seem there is a
> > missing multiplication of the new sample by 1/8. By not shifting the
> > new sample when it is added to srtt, the new sample is *implicitly*
> > multiplied by 1/8.
>
> Nifty. And it's documented.
>
> struct tcp_sock {
> …
> u32 srtt_us; /* smoothed round trip time << 3 in usecs */
>
> Thanks for the hint.
>
> >> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> >> index 0640453fce54..0242bb31e1ce 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> >> @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
As comments by Neal, srtt use lowest 3bits for fraction part, the
@mrtt_us does not include fraction part,
so m - srtt is not suitable, since m -= (srtt >> 3) will get the delta
which exclude fraction part, and m will also be
used to calculate mdev_us.
if we calculate srtt by: srtt = srtt *7/8 + (mrtt_us << 3)* 1 / 8,
it's more readable, append 3bits 0 for fraction part.
srtt = srtt *7/8 + (mrtt_us << 3)* 1 / 8
srtt *7/8 => srtt - srtt >> 3
(mrtt_us << 3)* 1 / 8 => mrtt_us
then
srtt = srtt - srtt >> 3 + mrtt_us;
srtt = srtt + mrtt_us - srtt >> 3
it's same as current code^_^
my previous patch does not consider the fraction part, it generates a
wrong result.
I write a new test code to decode the fraction part:
test_old old_srtt: 100 => 12.4 mrtt_us: 90
new_srtt: 178 => 22.2
test_new old_srtt: 100 => 12.4 mrtt_us: 90
new_srtt: 98 => 12.2
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#define u32 unsigned int
static void test_old(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
{
long m = mrtt_us;
u32 old = srtt;
m -= (srtt >> 3);
srtt += m;
printf("%s old_srtt: %8u => %8u.%u mrtt_us: %8ld new_srtt: %8u
=> %8u.%u\n", __func__, old, old >> 3, old & 7, mrtt_us, srtt,
srtt>>3, srtt & 7);
//printf("%s old_srtt>>3: %8u mrtt_us: %8ld new_srtt>>3: %u\n",
__func__, old>>3, mrtt_us, srtt>>3);
}
static void test_new(u32 srtt, long mrtt_us)
{
long m = mrtt_us;
u32 old = srtt;
m = ((m - srtt) >> 3);
srtt += m;
printf("%s old_srtt: %8u => %8u.%u mrtt_us: %8ld new_srtt: %8u
=> %8u.%u\n", __func__, old, old >> 3, old & 7, mrtt_us, srtt,
srtt>>3, srtt & 7);
//printf("%s old_srtt>>3: %8u mrtt_us: %8ld new_srtt>>3: %u\n",
__func__, old>>3, mrtt_us, srtt>>3);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
u32 srtt = atoi(argv[1]);
long mrtt_us = atoi(argv[2]);
test_old(srtt, mrtt_us);
test_new(srtt, mrtt_us);
return 0;
}
> >> * that VJ failed to avoid. 8)
> >> */
> >> if (srtt != 0) {
> >> - m -= (srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
> >> + m = (m - srtt >> 3); /* m is now error in rtt est */
> >> srtt += m; /* rtt = 7/8 rtt + 1/8 new */
> >> if (m < 0) {
> >> m = -m; /* m is now abs(error) */
> >> @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ static void tcp_rtt_estimator(struct sock *sk, long mrtt_us)
> >> if (m > 0)
> >> m >>= 3;
> >> } else {
> >> - m -= (tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
> >> + m = (m - tp->mdev_us >> 2); /* similar update on mdev */
> >> }
> >> tp->mdev_us += m; /* mdev = 3/4 mdev + 1/4 new */
> >> if (tp->mdev_us > tp->mdev_max_us) {
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >
> > AFAICT this proposed patch does not change the behavior of the code
> > but merely expresses the same operations with slightly different
> > syntax. Am I missing something? :-)
>
> I've been wondering about that too. There's a change hiding behind
> operator precedence. Would be better expressed with explicitly placed
> parenthesis:
>
> m = (m - srtt) >> 3; /* m is now error in rtt est */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
2022-12-06 9:11 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-12-10 13:35 ` Weiping Zhang
@ 2022-12-10 17:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-12-11 17:04 ` Stephen Hemminger
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2022-12-10 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Sitnicki
Cc: Neal Cardwell, Weiping Zhang, davem, yoshfuji, dsahern, kuba,
pabeni, netdev, zwp10758
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 10:29 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> Nifty. And it's documented.
>
> struct tcp_sock {
> …
> u32 srtt_us; /* smoothed round trip time << 3 in usecs */
>
> Thanks for the hint.
The >> 3 is all over the place... So even without a formal comment,
anyone familiar with TCP stack would spot this...
include/net/tcp.h:700: return usecs_to_jiffies((tp->srtt_us >> 3) +
tp->rttvar_us);
include/trace/events/tcp.h:286: __entry->srtt = tp->srtt_us >> 3;
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:6038: __u32 srtt_us; /* smoothed
round trip time << 3 in usecs */
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:6396: __u32 srtt_us; /* Averaged
RTT << 3 in usecs */
et/ipv4/tcp.c:3906: info->tcpi_rtt = tp->srtt_us >> 3;
net/ipv4/tcp.c:4045: nla_put_u32(stats, TCP_NLA_SRTT, tp->srtt_us >> 3);
net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c:273: if (tp->srtt_us) { /* any RTT
sample yet? */
net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c:274: rtt_us = max(tp->srtt_us >> 3, 1U);
...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation
2022-12-10 17:45 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2022-12-11 17:04 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2022-12-11 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: Jakub Sitnicki, Neal Cardwell, Weiping Zhang, davem, yoshfuji,
dsahern, kuba, pabeni, netdev, zwp10758
On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 18:45:56 +0100
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 10:29 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Nifty. And it's documented.
> >
> > struct tcp_sock {
> > …
> > u32 srtt_us; /* smoothed round trip time << 3 in usecs */
> >
> > Thanks for the hint.
>
> The >> 3 is all over the place... So even without a formal comment,
> anyone familiar with TCP stack would spot this...
And it should be in every text book already and is in BSD as well.
Maybe a link to the SIGCOMM paper would be good for those
google deprived people?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-11 17:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-12-05 18:07 [RFC PATCH] tcp: correct srtt and mdev_us calculation Weiping Zhang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-12-05 17:59 Weiping Zhang
2022-12-05 18:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-12-05 19:15 ` Neal Cardwell
2022-12-06 9:11 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-12-10 13:35 ` Weiping Zhang
2022-12-10 17:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-12-11 17:04 ` Stephen Hemminger
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).