net: TCP thin-stream detection
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/3 net: TCP thin-stream detection
Inline function to dynamically detect thin streams based on the number of packets in flight. Used to trigger thin-stream mechanisms.
--- include/net/tcp.h | 8 ++++++++ 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
include/net/tcp.h +8 -0
@@ -800,6 +800,14 @@ static inline bool tcp_in_initial_slowstart(const struct tcp_sock *tp)return tp->snd_ssthresh >=TCP_INFINITE_SSTHRESH ; } +/* Determines whether this is a thin stream (which may suffer from +* increased latency). Used to trigger latency-reducing mechanisms. +*/ +static inline unsigned int tcp_stream_is_thin (const struct tcp_sock *tp) +{ +return tp->packets_out <4 ; +} +/* If cwnd > ssthresh, we may raise ssthresh to be half-way to cwnd. * The exception is rate halving phase, when cwnd is decreasing towards * ssthresh.
Signature · 1 line
1.6.0.4
include/net/tcp.h static inline bool tcp_in_initial_slowstart(const struct tcp_sock *tp) · line 810
Quoted 8 lines · Andreas Petlund
include/net/tcp.h +8
-0+/* Determines whether this is a thin stream (which may suffer from +* increased latency). Used to trigger latency-reducing mechanisms. +*/ +static inline unsigned int tcp_stream_is_thin (const struct tcp_sock *tp) +{ +return tp->packets_out <4 ; +} +
This bothers me a bit. Having just looked at your Linux presentation, and not (yet) read your papers, it seems much of your justification was with 1 packet per RTT. Here, you seem to be concentrating on 4, probably because many implementations quickly ramp up to 4.
But there's a fair amount of experience showing that ramping to 4 is problematic on congested paths, especially wireless networks. Fast retransmit in that case would be disastrous.
Once upon a time, I worked on a fair number of interactive games a decade or so ago. And agree that this can be a problem, although I've never been a fan of turning off the Nagle algorithm. My solution has always been a heartbeat, rather than trying to shoehorn this into TCP.
Also, I've not seen any discussion on the end-to-end interest list.
Den 28. okt. 2009 kl. 04.09 skrev William Allen Simpson:
Quoted 15 lines
include/net/tcp.h static inline bool tcp_in_initial_slowstart(const struct tcp_sock *tp) · line 810
Quoted 9 lines · Andreas Petlund
include/net/tcp.h +4
-0+/* Determines whether this is a thin stream (which may suffer from +* increased latency). Used to trigger latency-reducing mechanisms. +*/ +static inline unsigned int tcp_stream_is_thin(const struct
tcp_sock*tp)include/net/tcp.h +4
-0+{ +return tp->packets_out <4 ; +} +This bothers me a bit. Having just looked at your Linux presentation, and not (yet) read your papers, it seems much of your justification was with 1 packet per RTT. Here, you seem to be concentrating on 4, probably because many implementations quickly ramp up to 4.
The limit of 4 packets in flight is based on the fact that less than 4 packets in flight makes fast retransmissions impossible, thus limiting the retransmit options to timeout-retransmissions. The criterion is therefore as conservative as possible while still serving its purpose. If further losses occur, the exponential backoff will increase latency further. The concept of using this limit is also discussed in the Internet draft for Early Retransmit by Allman et al.:
http://www.icir.org/mallman/papers/draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01.txt
Quoted 3 lines
But there's a fair amount of experience showing that ramping to 4 is problematic on congested paths, especially wireless networks. Fast retransmit in that case would be disastrous.
First, the modifications implemented in the patch is explicitly enabled only for applications where the developer knows that streams will be thin, thus only a small subset of the streams will apply the modifications. Second, experiments we have performed to try to map the effect on a congested bottleneck both with and without the modifications show that no measurable effect is recorded.
Graphs presenting results from experiments performed to analyse latency and fairness issues can be found here:
http://folk.uio.no/apetlund/lktmp/
Quoted 5 lines
Once upon a time, I worked on a fair number of interactive games a decade or so ago. And agree that this can be a problem, although I've never been a fan of turning off the Nagle algorithm. My solution has always been a heartbeat, rather than trying to shoehorn this into TCP.
The beginning of this patch was an analysis of game traffic from the Norwegian game company Funcom. They use TCP for all their MMOGs as does, for example, Blizzard for WoW. Our analysis showed that many players experienced extreme latencies, and the source of this was tracked to the effects that we discuss here. As long as a wide range of time-dependent applications choose to use TCP, and we can improve conditions for their needs without jeopardising other functionality, we think that this will add value to the TCP stack.
Quoted 1 line
Also, I've not seen any discussion on the end-to-end interest list.
It will be enlightening to have a discussion on end-to-end about this topic.
Quoted 20 lines · Andreas Petlund
Den 28. okt. 2009 kl. 04.09 skrev William Allen Simpson:
Quoted 17 lines
include/net/tcp.h static inline bool tcp_in_initial_slowstart(const struct tcp_sock *tp) · line 810
Quoted 9 lines · Andreas Petlund
include/net/tcp.h +4
-0+/* Determines whether this is a thin stream (which may suffer from +* increased latency). Used to trigger latency-reducing mechanisms. +*/ +static inline unsigned int tcp_stream_is_thin(const struct
tcp_sock*tp)include/net/tcp.h +4
-0+{ +return tp->packets_out <4 ; +} +This bothers me a bit. Having just looked at your Linux presentation, and not (yet) read your papers, it seems much of your justification was
with 1 packet per RTT. Here, you seem to be concentrating on 4, probably
because many implementations quickly ramp up to 4.
Quoted 3 lines
The limit of 4 packets in flight is based on the fact that less than 4 packets in flight makes fast retransmissions impossible, thus limiting the retransmit options to timeout-retransmissions. The criterion is
There is Limited Transmit! So this is generally not true.
Quoted 5 lines
therefore as conservative as possible while still serving its purpose. If further losses occur, the exponential backoff will increase latency further. The concept of using this limit is also discussed in the Internet draft for Early Retransmit by Allman et al.:
http://www.icir.org/mallman/papers/draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01.txt
This ID is covering exactly the cases which Limited Transmit does not cover and works "automagically" without help of application. So why not just implement this ID?
Best regards,
Arnd
Quoted 33 lines · Arnd Hannemann
Quoted 20 lines · Andreas Petlund
Den 28. okt. 2009 kl. 04.09 skrev William Allen Simpson:
Quoted 17 lines
include/net/tcp.h static inline bool tcp_in_initial_slowstart(const struct tcp_sock *tp) · line 810
Quoted 9 lines · Andreas Petlund
include/net/tcp.h +4
-0+/* Determines whether this is a thin stream (which may suffer from +* increased latency). Used to trigger latency-reducing mechanisms. +*/ +static inline unsigned int tcp_stream_is_thin(const struct
tcp_sock*tp)include/net/tcp.h +4
-0+{ +return tp->packets_out <4 ; +} +This bothers me a bit. Having just looked at your Linux presentation, and not (yet) read your papers, it seems much of your justification was
with 1 packet per RTT. Here, you seem to be concentrating on 4, probably
because many implementations quickly ramp up to 4.Quoted 3 lines
The limit of 4 packets in flight is based on the fact that less than 4 packets in flight makes fast retransmissions impossible, thus limiting the retransmit options to timeout-retransmissions. The criterion is
There is Limited Transmit! So this is generally not true.
Quoted 5 lines
therefore as conservative as possible while still serving its purpose. If further losses occur, the exponential backoff will increase latency further. The concept of using this limit is also discussed in the Internet draft for Early Retransmit by Allman et al.:
http://www.icir.org/mallman/papers/draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01.txt
Quoted 3 lines
This ID is covering exactly the cases which Limited Transmit does not cover and works "automagically" without help of application. So why not just implement this ID?
I even gave some advise recently to one guy how to polish up the early retransmit implementation of his. ...However, I think we haven't heard from that since then... I added him as CC if he happens to have it already done.
It is actually so that patches 1+3 implement sort of an early retransmit, just slightly more aggressive of it than what is given in ID but I find the difference in the aggressiveness rather insignificant. ...Whereas the RTO stuff is more questionable.
Signature · 1 line
i.