From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen•de>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google•com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen•de>, Netdev <netdev@vger•kernel.org>,
Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb•com>,
Andrew Shewmaker <agshew@gmail•com>,
Glenn Judd <glenn.judd@morganstanley•com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox•net>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google•com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google•com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google•com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 22:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161202214935.GB31010@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQymNZ+FQ5xJ92HuSkheAJfOTUyh-PsA11bxRWERZkD5zdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google•com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen•de> wrote:
> >
> > draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-02 says:
> >
> > ... when the sender receives an indication of congestion
> > (ECE), the sender SHOULD update cwnd as follows:
> >
> > cwnd = cwnd * (1 - DCTCP.Alpha / 2)
> >
> > So, lets do this and reduce cwnd more smoothly (and faster), as per
> > current congestion estimate.
>
> AFAICT this is doing a multiplicative decrease of cwnd on every ACK
> that has an ECE bit.
>
> If I am reading the code correctly, then I would have two concerns:
>
> 1) Has that been tested? That seems like an extremely dramatic
> decrease in cwnd. For example, if the cwnd is 80, and there are 40
> ACKs, and half the ACKs are ECE marked, then my back-of-the-envelope
> calculations seem to suggest that after just 11 ACKs the cwnd would be
> down to a minimal value of 2:
>
> ack 1 cwnd=60
> ack 2 cwnd=45
> ack 3 cwnd=33
[..]
You are assuming alpha = 0.5?
Then, yes, looks correct. Since some of these acks will most likely
also end an observation window acks might also cause change to alpha.
> 2) That seems to contradict another passage in the draft (v 02 or 03). Consider
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-03
> where it says
>
> Just as specified in [RFC3168], DCTCP does not react to congestion
> indications more than once for every window of data.
>
> So the draft seems to advocate not reacting to congestion indications
> more than once per window. Yet this patch reacts on every ECE-marked
> ACK within a window.
>
> Am I reading something incorrectly?
No, I will raise this on tcpm next monday (if you want you
can of course do this yourself).
Would be easy to make it so this cwnd update only happens once in each
observation cycle, but it would be even better if this would get input
from draft authors.
Thanks Neal!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-02 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 15:42 [PATCH next] dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event Florian Westphal
2016-11-16 3:02 ` David Miller
2016-12-02 21:01 ` Neal Cardwell
2016-12-02 21:49 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161202214935.GB31010@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen$(echo .)de \
--cc=agshew@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=brakmo@fb$(echo .)com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox$(echo .)net \
--cc=edumazet@google$(echo .)com \
--cc=glenn.judd@morganstanley$(echo .)com \
--cc=ncardwell@google$(echo .)com \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=soheil@google$(echo .)com \
--cc=ycheng@google$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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