Googler-only Hi Eric: yeah I think the test was just due to the TSO chunking difference between prod and upstream, which I was able to avoid with this patch re-suited by Neal in b/34128974. In fact, this patch enables me to run all recovery tests on upstream kernels for my RACK patch set.
Neal: can we polish and check that in? super useful. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Alexey Kodanev >>> <alexey.koda...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> > Hi Eric, >>> > >>> > On 01/13/2017 08:07 PM, Alexey Kodanev wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > Looks like max_window not correctly initialized for tfo sockets. >>> > On my test machine it has set to '5592320' in tcp_fastopen_create_child(). >>> > >>> > This diff fixes the issue, the question: is this the right place to do it? >>> > >>> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_fastopen.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_fastopen.c >>> > index 4e777a3..33ed508 100644 >>> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_fastopen.c >>> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_fastopen.c >>> > @@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static struct sock *tcp_fastopen_create_child(struct >>> > sock *sk, >>> > */ >>> > tp->snd_wnd = ntohs(tcp_hdr(skb)->window); >>> > >>> > + tp->max_window = tp->snd_wnd; >>> > + >>> >>> Excellent catch. Let me test our regression tests with this. >> Indeed nice catch. Thanks for the investigative work! >> > > We do have 2 failures, but tests might have depended on undocumented behavior > > (For googlers : > Ran 211 tests: 209 passing, 0 flaky 2 failing > Sponge: http://sponge/f1575065-6e1c-4514-bced-9167ce56d2ee > ) > > Please Alexey submit an official patch, thanks a lot !
