Hi Ilpo,

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 08:15:52PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> > It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
> > markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
> > false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get
> > a cumulative ACK with enough SACK blocks to trigger the fast
> > recovery (is_dupack would be false there too).
> > 
> > I'm not completely pleased with this solution because readability
> > of the code is somewhat questionable as 'is_dupack' in SACK case
> > is no longer about dupacks only but would mean something like
> > 'lost_marker_work_todo' too... But because of Eifel stuff done
> > in CA_Recovery, the FLAG_DATA_SACKED check cannot be placed to
> > the if statement which seems attractive solution. Nevertheless,
> > I didn't like adding another variable just for that either... :-)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
> > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_input.c |    5 ++++-
> >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: 2.6/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- 2.6.orig/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > +++ 2.6/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > @@ -1951,7 +1951,10 @@ tcp_fastretrans_alert(struct sock *sk, u
> >  {
> >  	struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk);
> >  	struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
> > -	int is_dupack = (tp->snd_una == prior_snd_una && !(flag&FLAG_NOT_DUP));
> > +	int is_dupack = (tp->snd_una == prior_snd_una &&
> > +			 (!(flag&FLAG_NOT_DUP) ||
> > +			  ((flag&FLAG_DATA_SACKED) &&
> > +			   (tp->fackets_out > tp->reordering))));
> >  
> >  	/* Some technical things:
> >  	 * 1. Reno does not count dupacks (sacked_out) automatically. */
> 
> FYI,
> 
> This ended up being a non complete fix. Day after these two patches 
> (11-12) I submitted two other patches to complete this fix series (got 
> bitten by release-early-release-often, fixed day-after-submission 
> thoughts in those two later patches). For some reason these two keep 
> floating around as separate ones from those two later ones.
> 
> To make things even more complicated, eb7bdad82e8 (see stable-2.6.22) 
> could have been split more logically to do_lost addition and 
> FLAG_SND_UNA_ADVANCED parts (but that didn't occur to me back then).
> 
> All of them listed here (from stable-2.6.22 since one of them is
> reduced from mainline version):
> 
> 6d742fb6e2b8913457e1282e1be77d6f4e45af00 Fix TCP DSACK cwnd handling
> eb7bdad82e8af48e1ed1b650268dc85ca7e9ff39 Handle snd_una in tcp_cwnd_down()
> 8385cffd22359ad561a173accefeb354bd606ce4 TCP: Fix TCP handling of SACK in 
> 783366ad4b212cde069c50903494eb6a6b83958c TCP: Fix TCP rate-halving on 

Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. In fact, I've reviewed them
four, but two of them did not apply and the code looked somewhat different,
so I considered them irrelevant to 2.6.20. I didn't understand that they
were all related, so maybe I checked them in a wrong order.

I'll recheck all that in the right sequence and will merge them four, or
get back to you if something still puzzles me.

Thanks!
Willy

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/