| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix places where there is space before tab, long lines, and
awkward if(){, double spacing etc. Add blank line after declaration/initialization.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Joe Maples <joe@frap129.org>
Conflicts:
net/ipv4/tcp_probe.c
net/ipv4/tcp_vegas.c
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch fixes a bug in CUBIC that causes cwnd to increase slightly
too slowly when multiple ACKs arrive in the same jiffy.
If cwnd is supposed to increase at a rate of more than once per jiffy,
then CUBIC was sometimes too slow. Because the bic_target is
calculated for a future point in time, calculated with time in
jiffies, the cwnd can increase over the course of the jiffy while the
bic_target calculated as the proper CUBIC cwnd at time
t=tcp_time_stamp+rtt does not increase, because tcp_time_stamp only
increases on jiffy tick boundaries.
So since the cnt is set to:
ca->cnt = cwnd / (bic_target - cwnd);
as cwnd increases but bic_target does not increase due to jiffy
granularity, the cnt becomes too large, causing cwnd to increase
too slowly.
For example:
- suppose at the beginning of a jiffy, cwnd=40, bic_target=44
- so CUBIC sets:
ca->cnt = cwnd / (bic_target - cwnd) = 40 / (44 - 40) = 40/4 = 10
- suppose we get 10 acks, each for 1 segment, so tcp_cong_avoid_ai()
increases cwnd to 41
- so CUBIC sets:
ca->cnt = cwnd / (bic_target - cwnd) = 41 / (44 - 41) = 41 / 3 = 13
So now CUBIC will wait for 13 packets to be ACKed before increasing
cwnd to 42, insted of 10 as it should.
The fix is to avoid adjusting the slope (determined by ca->cnt)
multiple times within a jiffy, and instead skip to compute the Reno
cwnd, the "TCP friendliness" code path.
Reported-by: Eyal Perry <eyalpe@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tracking idle time in bictcp_cwnd_event() is imprecise, as epoch_start
is normally set at ACK processing time, not at send time.
Doing a proper fix would need to add an additional state variable,
and does not seem worth the trouble, given CUBIC bug has been there
forever before Jana noticed it.
Let's simply not set epoch_start in the future, otherwise
bictcp_update() could overflow and CUBIC would again
grow cwnd too fast.
This was detected thanks to a packetdrill test Neal wrote that was flaky
before applying this fix.
Fixes: 30927520dbae ("tcp_cubic: better follow cubic curve after idle period")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Cc: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Jana Iyengar found an interesting issue on CUBIC :
The epoch is only updated/reset initially and when experiencing losses.
The delta "t" of now - epoch_start can be arbitrary large after app idle
as well as the bic_target. Consequentially the slope (inverse of
ca->cnt) would be really large, and eventually ca->cnt would be
lower-bounded in the end to 2 to have delayed-ACK slow-start behavior.
This particularly shows up when slow_start_after_idle is disabled
as a dangerous cwnd inflation (1.5 x RTT) after few seconds of idle
time.
Jana initial fix was to reset epoch_start if app limited,
but Neal pointed out it would ask the CUBIC algorithm to recalculate the
curve so that we again start growing steeply upward from where cwnd is
now (as CUBIC does just after a loss). Ideally we'd want the cwnd growth
curve to be the same shape, just shifted later in time by the amount of
the idle period.
Reported-by: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Sangtae Ha <sangtae.ha@gmail.com>
Cc: Lawrence Brakmo <lawrence@brakmo.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
|
| |
|
