On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
> ...
>>>> What if we call the field tp->prior_cwnd? Then at least we'd have some
>>>> nice symmetry:
>>>>
>>>> - tp->snd_cwnd, which is saved in tp->prior_cwnd (and restored upon undo)
>>>> - tp->snd_ssthresh, which is saved in tp-> prior_ssthresh (and
>>>> restored upon undo)
>>>>
>>>> That sounds appealing to me. WDYT?
>>>
>>> And, I should add, if we go with the tp->prior_cwnd approach, then we
>>> can have a single "default"/CUBIC-style undo function, instead of 15
>>> separate but identical implementations...
>> you mean all CC modules share one ca_ops->undo_cwnd function? sounds a
>> nice consolidation work.
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> Right now we have 9 modules that have identical tcp_foo_cwnd_undo functions:
>
> tcp_bic.c:188: return max(tp->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_cubic.c:378: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_dctcp.c:318: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_highspeed.c:165: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_illinois.c:309: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_nv.c:190: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_scalable.c:50: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, ca->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_veno.c:210: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, veno->loss_cwnd);
> tcp_yeah.c:232: return max(tcp_sk(sk)->snd_cwnd, yeah->loss_cwnd);
>
> And if we fix this bug in tcp_reno_undo_cwnd() by referring to
> ca->loss_cwnd then we will add another 6 like this.
>
> So my proposal would be
>
> - tp->snd_cwnd, which is saved in tp->prior_cwnd (and restored upon undo)
> - tp->snd_ssthresh, which is saved in tp-> prior_ssthresh (and
> restored upon undo)
>
> Actually, now that I re-read the code, we already do have a
> prior_cwnd, which is used for the PRR code, and already set upon
> entering CA_Recovery. So if we set prior_cwnd for CA_Loss, perhaps we
> can do something like:
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_cong.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_cong.c
> index fde983f6376b..c2b174469645 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_cong.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_cong.c
> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ u32 tcp_reno_undo_cwnd(struct sock *sk)
> {
> const struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
>
> - return max(tp->snd_cwnd, tp->snd_ssthresh << 1);
> + return max(tp->snd_cwnd, tp->prior_cwnd);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tcp_reno_undo_cwnd);
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index 2920e0cb09f8..ae790a84302d 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -1951,6 +1951,7 @@ void tcp_enter_loss(struct sock *sk)
> !after(tp->high_seq, tp->snd_una) ||
> (icsk->icsk_ca_state == TCP_CA_Loss && !icsk->icsk_retransmits)) {
> tp->prior_ssthresh = tcp_current_ssthresh(sk);
> + tp->prior_cwnd = tp->snd_cwnd;
> tp->snd_ssthresh = icsk->icsk_ca_ops->ssthresh(sk);
> tcp_ca_event(sk, CA_EVENT_LOSS);
> tcp_init_undo(tp);
>
> And then change all the CC modules but BBR to use the
> tcp_reno_undo_cwnd() instead of their own custom undo code.
>
> WDYT?
Looks reasonable. But we might want to eventually refactor TCP undo
code: the stats changes (prior_ssthresh, prior_cwnd, undo_marker,
undo_retrans) are scattered in different helpers, making the code hard
to audit.
>
> neal
