lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [net-next PATCH v2 2/3] net: TCP thin linear timeouts
Date
From
Am 09.02.2010, 17:40 Uhr, schrieb Andreas Petlund <apetlund@simula.no>:

> On 02/08/2010 09:50 PM, Damian Lukowski wrote:
>>> out_reset_timer:
>>> - icsk->icsk_rto = min(icsk->icsk_rto << 1, TCP_RTO_MAX);
>>> + /* If stream is thin, use linear timeouts. Since 'icsk_backoff' is
>>> + * used to reset timer, set to 0. Recalculate 'icsk_rto' as this
>>> + * might be increased if the stream oscillates between thin and
>>> thick,
>>> + * thus the old value might already be too high compared to the value
>>> + * set by 'tcp_set_rto' in tcp_input.c which resets the rto without
>>> + * backoff. Limit to TCP_THIN_LT_RETRIES before initiating
>>> exponential
>>> + * backoff behaviour to avoid continue hammering linear-timeout
>>> + * retransmissions into a black hole*/
>>> + if ((tp->thin_lt || sysctl_tcp_force_thin_linear_timeouts) &&
>>> + tcp_stream_is_thin(sk) && sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED &&
>>> + icsk->icsk_retransmits <= TCP_THIN_LT_RETRIES) {
>>> + icsk->icsk_backoff = 0;
>>
>> Hi,
>> I think, this value should be at least 1, as icsk_backoff
>> might be decreased to -1 and used for bit-shifting in tcp_v4_err().
>> A lower boundary check might be even better.
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> As far as I can see, the check a couple of lines above the decrementation
> stops the icsk->icsk_backoff from being decremented if already zero.
> Beyond that I cannot find any more places where this situation may arise.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong and a boundary check is indeed warranted.

Oops, you are right, of course ...
I just had in mind, that a thin stream might also be a candidate for
backoff reversion when connectivity breaks down, that's why I said
"at least 1". And I really have forgotten the already existing check,
sorry.
So, setting icsk_backoff = 0 will prevent a backoff reversion, but that's
ok, as the RTO is not doubled in the first place.

It might have been an issue, if you had not used __tcp_set_rto() but left
the value unchanged *and* a non-thin stream became thin at some point in
the RTO retransmission phase (if that is even possible).

Damian


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-10 18:37    [W:0.048 / U:33.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site