From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
While playing with CoDel and ECN marking, I discovered a
non optimal behavior of receiver of CE (Congestion Encountered)
segments.
In pathological cases, sender has reduced its cwnd to low values,
and receiver delays its ACK (by 40 ms).
While RFC 3168 6.1.3 (The TCP Receiver) doesn't explicitly recommend
to send immediate ACKS, we believe its better to not delay ACKS, because
a CE segment should give same signal than a dropped segment, and its
quite important to reduce RTT to give ECE/CWR signals as fast as
possible.
Note we already call tcp_enter_quickack_mode() from TCP_ECN_check_ce()
if we receive a retransmit, for the same reason.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 2fd2bc9..fa2c2c2 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -237,7 +237,11 @@ static inline void TCP_ECN_check_ce(struct tcp_sock *tp, const struct sk_buff *s
tcp_enter_quickack_mode((struct sock *)tp);
break;
case INET_ECN_CE:
- tp->ecn_flags |= TCP_ECN_DEMAND_CWR;
+ if (!(tp->ecn_flags & TCP_ECN_DEMAND_CWR)) {
+ /* Better not delay acks, sender can have a very low cwnd */
+ tcp_enter_quickack_mode((struct sock *)tp);
+ tp->ecn_flags |= TCP_ECN_DEMAND_CWR;
+ }
/* fallinto */
default:
tp->ecn_flags |= TCP_ECN_SEEN;On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
While playing with CoDel and ECN marking, I discovered a
non optimal behavior of receiver of CE (Congestion Encountered)
segments.
In pathological cases, sender has reduced its cwnd to low values,
and receiver delays its ACK (by 40 ms).
While RFC 3168 6.1.3 (The TCP Receiver) doesn't explicitly recommend
to send immediate ACKS, we believe its better to not delay ACKS, because
a CE segment should give same signal than a dropped segment, and its
quite important to reduce RTT to give ECE/CWR signals as fast as
possible.
Note we already call tcp_enter_quickack_mode() from TCP_ECN_check_ce()
if we receive a retransmit, for the same reason.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
neal
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:07:08 -0400
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
While playing with CoDel and ECN marking, I discovered a
non optimal behavior of receiver of CE (Congestion Encountered)
segments.
In pathological cases, sender has reduced its cwnd to low values,
and receiver delays its ACK (by 40 ms).
While RFC 3168 6.1.3 (The TCP Receiver) doesn't explicitly recommend
to send immediate ACKS, we believe its better to not delay ACKS, because
a CE segment should give same signal than a dropped segment, and its
quite important to reduce RTT to give ECE/CWR signals as fast as
possible.
Note we already call tcp_enter_quickack_mode() from TCP_ECN_check_ce()
if we receive a retransmit, for the same reason.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Applied, thanks.