- User Since
- May 16 2014, 9:03 PM (197 w, 2 d)
Fri, Feb 9
@jason_eggnet.com why did you move K calculation from post recovery to ack received? I don't think that's correct.
Mon, Feb 5
BTW, I am okay with this bandaid fix for now.
I remember this one. :-)
jegg, can you please elaborate on 'cwnd < 1smss bad for other parts of the code' part?
People wanting to disable tfo (for whatever reasons) may have different opinions but looks good to me on a quick glance. Thanks.
Jan 2 2018
Jan 1 2018
Awesome! Thank you for this work!
Dec 17 2017
Oct 19 2017
Jun 20 2017
I know this has been in prod for quite some time and works. I don't want to engage in "best-practices" for this. :-) LGTM.
Jun 6 2017
I am not too sure on details but can this be done with PCBGROUPS/RSS? https://github.com/erikarn/freebsd-rss/ has some examples.
May 26 2017
May 25 2017
It'd be nice to have a bit of a writeup on what hystart is and how its implemented here.
May 17 2017
Do mention stable/10 rev also in your commit.
Apr 26 2017
Apr 20 2017
Thanks for the explanation. Change looks correct to me just that the code is a bit muddied with this single check moving elsewhere (for the right reasons) and a bit more code duplication in alt stack code. But I think those are out of the scope of this patch.
@bryanv do you have time to look at this now?
Apr 19 2017
Apr 18 2017
For my understanding, what is the side-effect of this 'partial processing' before we eventually drop it? (I assume we do drop it but later in the path, right?)
Not against the patch but trying to understand what is driving this fix. :-)
Apr 14 2017
Apr 13 2017
Other than it not being able to build, I like the var name change requested by Robert and the general approach.
Mar 27 2017
Mar 7 2017
Jan 31 2017
I'd appreciate another pair of eyes on this.
Jan 30 2017
Jan 28 2017
Jan 27 2017
Jan 23 2017
Jan 16 2017
Jan 12 2017
Can't actually review as an author of the patch. It'd be nice if someone else can look at it.
Jan 6 2017
Is this still the most updated patch of this work?
Jan 5 2017
Jan 4 2017
Jan 3 2017
Is it possible to handle 'm' being null in TCP_PROBE3() instead of these if/else checks everywhere?
Dec 15 2016
Hi Michael, Is this ready to land in -HEAD?
Dec 11 2016
Dec 10 2016
Right. This is fixing the *obvious* bug. Please let me know what else you have in mind and that way its logged for myself of someone else to pick up.
Dec 9 2016
@kmacy suspects there might be drivers/firmware that cannot handle this but we haven't gone and dug any examples of that up. If that is the case, we should disable TSO on any packet with IP options set as the current code does, but additionally check for a flag on the output interface indicating that incompatibility.
Dec 8 2016
Dec 5 2016
Dec 1 2016
Nov 21 2016
Nov 18 2016
Thanks for this fix. Nice catch.
Nov 17 2016
- If we find a matching syncache entry, but there is a problem with validating it (e.g. RST, etc.), ignore it.
Hum, can you please provide an example of this? what could 3rd maching ack bring that doesn't validate? I am probably missing something obvious.
Nov 15 2016
Nov 14 2016
Nov 1 2016
Oct 31 2016
Also restore pre-r307901 behavior of alighning ssthresh on MSS boundary.
Oct 27 2016
This is a bug exposed by recent commit https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=307901
Oct 26 2016
Oct 25 2016
Oct 23 2016
Talked to @rstone about adding some comments to make code more readable.
Oct 22 2016
I tried running a few loss scenarios with various available CC algos and nothing seem broken. Loss scenarios include : dropping a single packet, dropping a bunch of packets, dropping a lot of packets to create severe loss situation, ack loss, etc.
Oct 21 2016
Changing snd_cwnd tracking variable's name from win to cwin and its type to uint32_t.
I'll run all my tests tomorrow and update here with results.
Oct 19 2016
Oct 18 2016
Oct 17 2016
@kmacy Can you please looks at my comments? I like the changes otherwise.
Oct 14 2016
Oct 12 2016
As Kevin mentioned, this looks good on prod traffic at llnw.
Oct 11 2016
Thanks for fixing these corner-cases. :-)
Oct 9 2016
@kmacy, about the exception you noted, I am a little puzzled.
a state where min_rtt_ticks is zero but we are *not* in slowstart - could still be processed in the old code if other rfc3465 conditions align as the guarding 'if' looks like this:
Oct 7 2016
You may want to briefly list pros/cons of having or not having the framework so people can decide whether its worth including it.