From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: Linux ECN Handling
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:52:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CANn89iJScne8A_kme7sD54bbNXz4S=7GoECb_8q-8FEOyfL1VQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACJspmLFdy9i8K=TkzXHnofyFMNoJf9HkYE7On8uG+PREc2Dqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171019124312.GE16796@breakpoint.cc> <CACJspmKjAr+q9cFVssXVxWQMCUWe3TNYO77m0nQwzQK4hTCOzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVnQymmMeo=cemUPQCzHpNvFPKCaqY1+VPchmui+HWuCL7CuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A006CF6.1020608@iogearbox.net> <CACJspmL3SKhsAa9_2uEFNGADd0Q3e8S1hrgRAmvXjbnuevasyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJspmLJWE0Ld1ZW_PgKoyeNgbDumL-P3mWAN-8WZRM9fGVvFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVnQy=q4qBpe0Ymo8dtFTYU_0x0q_XKE+ZvazLQE-ULwu7pQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJspm+SHCS=RV0QwKGwY0qGvp4nQKCRFMwmRQdQr2OY5ka9YQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVnQykrF3JY9seYfaV4cSrdg7mHorvyCD12n8N1HAxnXXGrJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK6E8=eN4rYY0-X_7QUDsCc2T-QPcq_1ybEVaKU7TzNL9KKmLA@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQymO+sjGO4T0Bu-eyJbyPKuND0sO-nNyzRAqJ9uoznNRTg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
        Steve Ibanez <sibanez@stanford.edu>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        Mohammad Alizadeh <alizadeh@csail.mit.edu>,
        Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f171.google.com ([209.85.128.171]:40498 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751145AbdKUQwF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:52:05 -0500
Received: by mail-wr0-f171.google.com with SMTP id s41so6472851wrc.7
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQymO+sjGO4T0Bu-eyJbyPKuND0sO-nNyzRAqJ9uoznNRTg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The original motivation for only allowing TLP in the CA_Open state was
>>> to be conservative and avoid having the TLP impose extra load on the
>>> bottleneck when it may be congested. Plus if there are any SACKed
>>> packets in the SACK scoreboard then there are other existing
>>> mechanisms to do speedy loss recovery.
>> Neal I like your idea of covering more states in TLP. but shouldn't we
>> also fix the tso_deferral_logic to work better w/ PRR in CWR state, b/c
>> it's a general transmission issue.
>
> Yes, I agree it's also worthwhile to see if we can make PRR and TSO
> deferral play well together. Sorry, I should have been more clear
> about that.

Yes, but tso auto defer is an heuristic, and since we do not have a
timer to 'send the partial packet'
after we understand the ACK that we were waiting for does not arrive in time,
we know that the heuristic is not perfect.

Adding a timer (and its overhead) for maybe a fraction of cases might
be overkill.

'Fixing' TSO autodefer has been on our plates for ever, we played some
games that proved to be too expensive.

Although I have not played re-using the new hr timer we added for TCP pacing.