From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wenji Wu Subject: Re: RE: A Linux TCP SACK Question Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:27:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1e41a3230804040927j3ce53a84u6a95ec37dff1b5b0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c8967c$496efa20$c95ee183@D2GT6T71> <000b01c89699$00e99590$c95ee183@D2GT6T71> <000f01c896a1$3022fec0$c95ee183@D2GT6T71> <649aecc70804051417l4cf9b30asec8ca8d55e79e051@mail.gmail.com> <649aecc70804061543v3ca3d0dau2ce303ecd2310bdc@mail.gmail.com> <000701c898bf$99fc3f80$c95ee183@D2GT6T71> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: 'Sangtae Ha' , 'John Heffner' , 'Netdev' To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= Return-path: Received: from mailgw2.fnal.gov ([131.225.111.12]:50263 "EHLO mailgw2.fnal.gov" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751536AbYDHPd5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:33:57 -0400 Received: from mailav2.fnal.gov (mailav2.fnal.gov [131.225.111.20]) by mailgw2.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) with SMTP id <0JZ000FEJIQBY1@mailgw2.fnal.gov> for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:27:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mailgw2.fnal.gov ([131.225.111.12]) by mailav2.fnal.gov (SAVSMTP 3.1.7.47) with SMTP id M2008040810271509026 for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:27:15 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.mailgw2.fnal.gov by mailgw2.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) id <0JZ000J01IOWFH@mailgw2.fnal.gov> (original mail from wenji@fnal.gov) for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:27:15 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Content-language: en Content-disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > It's a bit hard for me to believe, considering what the last weeks > debug > has revealed about internals of it. Have you checked it from the dumps > or > from the overall results, a similarity in the latter could be due to > other factors related to the differences in reordering detection > between > NewReno/SACK. > > ...There might be some bug which causes it to get skipped under some > circumstances though (which I haven't yet remembered to fix). I don't > > remember too well anymore, probably some goto which caused skipping > most > of what's in there. > Get back to you later, and post the tcpdump file for 2.6.25. wenji