tcp: avoid reducing cwnd when ACK+DSACK is received
With TLP, the peer may reply to a probe with an ACK+D-SACK, with ack value set to tlp_high_seq. In the current code, such ACK+DSACK will be missed and only at next, higher ack will the TLP episode be considered done. Since the DSACK is not present anymore, this will cost a cwnd reduction. This patch ensures that this scenario does not cause a cwnd reduction, since receiving an ACK+DSACK indicates that both the initial segment and the probe have been received by the peer. The following packetdrill test, from Neal Cardwell, validates this patch: // Establish a connection. 0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 +0 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 +0 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0 +0 listen(3, 1) = 0 +0 < S 0:0(0) win 32792 <mss 1000,sackOK,nop,nop,nop,wscale 7> +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 6> +.020 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 257 +0 accept(3, ..., ...) = 4 // Send 1 packet. +0 write(4, ..., 1000) = 1000 +0 > P. 1:1001(1000) ack 1 // Loss probe retransmission. // packets_out == 1 => schedule PTO in max(2*RTT, 1.5*RTT + 200ms) // In this case, this means: 1.5*RTT + 200ms = 230ms +.230 > P. 1:1001(1000) ack 1 +0 %{ assert tcpi_snd_cwnd == 10 }% // Receiver ACKs at tlp_high_seq with a DSACK, // indicating they received the original packet and probe. +.020 < . 1:1(0) ack 1001 win 257 <sack 1:1001,nop,nop> +0 %{ assert tcpi_snd_cwnd == 10 }% // Send another packet. +0 write(4, ..., 1000) = 1000 +0 > P. 1001:2001(1000) ack 1 // Receiver ACKs above tlp_high_seq, which should end the TLP episode // if we haven't already. We should not reduce cwnd. +.020 < . 1:1(0) ack 2001 win 257 +0 %{ assert tcpi_snd_cwnd == 10, tcpi_snd_cwnd }% Credits: -Gregory helped in finding that tcp_process_tlp_ack was where the cwnd got reduced in our MPTCP tests. -Neal wrote the packetdrill test above -Yuchung reworked the patch to make it more readable. Cc: Gregory Detal <gregory.detal@uclouvain.be> Cc: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com> Tested-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Reviewed-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sébastien Barré <sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment