From: Ivan Babrou <email@example.com>
To: Dave Taht <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: bpf <email@example.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <email@example.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <email@example.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Eric Dumazet <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] tcp: bpf: Add TCP_BPF_RCV_SSTHRESH for bpf_setsockopt
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:56:42 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABWYdi0ZHYvzzP9SFOCJhnfyMP12Ot9ALEmXg75oeXBWRAD8KQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:02 PM Dave Taht <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I would not use the word "latency" in this way, I would just say
> potentially reducing
Roundtrips translate directly into latency on high latency links.
> and potentially massively increasing packet loss, oversaturating
> links, and otherwise
> hurting latency for other applications sharing the link, including the
> that advertised an extreme window like this.
The receive window is going to scale up to tcp_rmem with traffic,
and packet loss won't stop it. That's around 3MiB on anything that's
not embedded these days.
My understanding is that congestion control on the sender side deals
with packet loss, bottleneck saturation, and packet pacing. This patch
only touches the receiving side, letting the client scale up faster if
they choose to do so. I don't think any out of the box sender will
make use of this, even if we enable it on the receiver, just because
the sender's congestion control constraints are lower (like
Let me know if any of this doesn't look right to you.
> This overall focus tends to freak me out somewhat, especially when
> faced with further statements that cloudflare is using an initcwnd of 250!???
Congestion window is a learned property, not a static number. You
won't get a large initcwnd towards a poor connection.
We have a dedicated backbone with different properties.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-13 22:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-11 19:29 [PATCH bpf-next] tcp: bpf: Add TCP_BPF_RCV_SSTHRESH for bpf_setsockopt Ivan Babrou
2022-01-11 21:47 ` Song Liu
2022-01-13 22:56 ` Ivan Babrou
2022-01-12 21:01 ` Dave Taht
2022-01-13 22:56 ` Ivan Babrou [this message]
2022-01-14 5:43 ` Dave Taht
2022-01-14 22:20 ` Ivan Babrou
2022-01-15 16:46 ` Dave Taht
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).