TCP without FRTO would be in Loss state with small cwnd. FRTO,
however, leaves cwnd (typically) to a larger value which causes
ssthresh to become too large in case RTO is triggered again
compared to what conventional recovery would do. Because
consecutive RTOs result in only a single ssthresh reduction,
RTO+cumulative ACK+RTO pattern is required to trigger this
event.
A large comment is included for congestion control module writers
trying to figure out what CA_EVENT_FRTO handler should do because
there exists a remote possibility of incompatibility between
FRTO and module defined ssthresh functions.
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 2c0b387..5d935b1 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -1289,7 +1289,31 @@ void tcp_enter_frto(struct sock *sk)
((icsk->icsk_ca_state == TCP_CA_Loss || tp->frto_counter) &&
!icsk->icsk_retransmits)) {
tp->prior_ssthresh = tcp_current_ssthresh(sk);
- tp->snd_ssthresh = icsk->icsk_ca_ops->ssthresh(sk);
+ /* Our state is too optimistic in ssthresh() call because cwnd
+ * is not reduced until tcp_enter_frto_loss() when previous FRTO
+ * recovery has not yet completed. Pattern would be this: RTO,
+ * Cumulative ACK, RTO (2xRTO for the same segment does not end
+ * up here twice).
+ * RFC4138 should be more specific on what to do, even though
+ * RTO is quite unlikely to occur after the first Cumulative ACK
+ * due to back-off and complexity of triggering events ...
+ */
+ if (tp->frto_counter) {
+ u32 stored_cwnd;
+ stored_cwnd = tp->snd_cwnd;
+ tp->snd_cwnd = 2;
+ tp->snd_ssthresh = icsk->icsk_ca_ops->ssthresh(sk);
+ tp->snd_cwnd = stored_cwnd;
+ } else {
+ tp->snd_ssthresh = icsk->icsk_ca_ops->ssthresh(sk);
+ }
+ /* ... in theory, cong.control module could do "any tricks" in
+ * ssthresh(), which means that ca_state, lost bits and lost_out
+ * counter would have to be faked before the call occurs. We
+ * consider that too expensive, unlikely and hacky, so modules
+ * using these in ssthresh() must deal these incompatibility
+ * issues if they receives CA_EVENT_FRTO and frto_counter != 0
+ */
tcp_ca_event(sk, CA_EVENT_FRTO);
}
--
1.4.2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
