Re: [PATCH] tcp: avoid cwnd moderation in undo

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Carsten Wolff [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Monday 14 March 2011, Yuchung Cheng wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Carsten Wolff [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

In the presence of reordering, cwnd is already moderated in Disorder
state before
 entering the (false) recovery.

Sure, cwnd moderation to in_flight + 1 segment is applied in disorder state,

it's in_flight + 3 usually. the moderation first happens
tcp_try_to_open() instead of tcp_cwnd_down()

because this is implementing a form of extended limited transmit.
Nevertheless, after a reordering event that caused a spurious fast retransmit,
there can be an undo of congestion state changes (either after recovery or
interrupting recovery, depending on the options enabled in the connection). I
just wanted to point out, that the moderation step happening upon an undo may
allow a larger burst, if a previous reordering event was detected and caused
tp->reordering to be increased.

Your point is that cwnd should be moderated on reordering (in undo or
other events). Point taken.
 My point is that cwnd does not need to be moderated on false
recoveries. Do you agree?
To implement your design, tcp_update_reordering should do
tcp_cwnd_moderation().
To implement my point, the moderations should be avoided in undo operations.

The two aren't in conflict. But there are cases that have both undo
and reordering.
Are we on the same page?

quoted

quoted

More importantly, the prior ssthresh is restored and not affected by
moderation. This means, if moderation reduces cwnd to a small value, then
cwnd < ssthresh and TCP will quickly slow-start back to the previous
state, without sending a big burst of segments.

This is actually the more important point, because it means that the
moderation does not negate the effects of the undo operation, as suggested by
your patch-description.

It's a double-edge sword. Why slow-start if there is no real loss? It
hurts short
request-response type traffic performance badly b/c each undo makes cwnd = 3.

False fast retransmits are mostly caused by reordering, spurious RTOs can also
be caused by delay variations that do not exhibit reordering. Your patch
touches all cases of spurious events. Anyway, I just mentioned reordering,
because it is the event in which Linux already allows larger bursts of size
tp->reordering in the moderation function (i.e. tp->reordering might be
increased). It's also not important to me if the undo is happening duringor
after recovery, the important question is, if burst protection in general is
an important goal, or not (and I think it's there for a reason).

I am hoping my previous explanation make sense to you (these two points are
not in conflict).