From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:30:32 +0200 (EET)
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > Anyways, someone please enlighten me and please also cook
> > up a patch to add the descriptive comment :-)
>
> Not sure if a too simple patch here is correct thin
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:42:41 -0500
>
> > Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > ...I'm still to figure out why tcp_cwnd_down uses snd_ssthresh/2
> > > as lower bound even though the ssthresh was already halved,
> > > so sn
Hello!
> My theory is that it could relate to tcp_cwnd_restart and
> tcp_cwnd_application_limited using it and the others are just then
> accidently changed as well. Perhaps I'll have to dig once again to
> changelog history to see if there's some clue (unless Alexey shed
> some light to this)
From: John Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:42:41 -0500
> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > ...I'm still to figure out why tcp_cwnd_down uses snd_ssthresh/2
> > as lower bound even though the ssthresh was already halved,
> > so snd_ssthresh should suffice.
>
> I remember this coming
I can shed light one one detail: ratehalving w/bounding parameters uses
snd_cwnd/4 to be appropriately conservative during slowstart. Ideally cwnd
would be saved for every transmitted segment, and during recovery, ssthresh
and min_cwnd would be set to saved_cwnd/2. However since cwnd is not s
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, John Heffner wrote:
> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > ...Mind if I ask another similar one, any idea why prior_ssthresh is smaller
> > (3/4 of it) than cwnd used to be (see tcp_current_ssthresh)?
>
> Not sure on that one. I'm not aware of any publications this is based on.
My th
Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, John Heffner wrote:
Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...I'm still to figure out why tcp_cwnd_down uses snd_ssthresh/2
as lower bound even though the ssthresh was already halved, so snd_ssthresh
should suffice.
I remember this coming up at least once before, so it'
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, John Heffner wrote:
> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > ...I'm still to figure out why tcp_cwnd_down uses snd_ssthresh/2
> > as lower bound even though the ssthresh was already halved, so snd_ssthresh
> > should suffice.
>
> I remember this coming up at least once before, so it's proba
Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...I'm still to figure out why tcp_cwnd_down uses snd_ssthresh/2
as lower bound even though the ssthresh was already halved,
so snd_ssthresh should suffice.
I remember this coming up at least once before, so it's probably worth a
comment in the code. Rate-halving attempt
Hi Dave,
Here are couple of fixes to net-2.6. The first one is to FRTO
which may fix some corner-case bug if the hand-coded check and
the !tcp_may_send_now disagree. I didn't check the differences
that carefully so they might agree after considering what FRTO
overrides from there, however, it make
10 matches
Mail list logo
