tcp: support DUPACK threshold in RACK
This patch adds support for the classic DUPACK threshold rule (#DupThresh) in RACK. When the number of packets SACKed is greater or equal to the threshold, RACK sets the reordering window to zero which would immediately mark all the unsacked packets below the highest SACKed sequence lost. Since this approach is known to not work well with reordering, RACK only uses it if no reordering has been observed. The DUPACK threshold rule is a particularly useful extension to the fast recoveries triggered by RACK reordering timer. For example data-center transfers where the RTT is much smaller than a timer tick, or high RTT path where the default RTT/4 may take too long. Note that this patch differs slightly from RFC6675. RFC6675 considers a packet lost when at least #DupThresh higher-sequence packets are SACKed. With RACK, for connections that have seen reordering, RACK continues to use a dynamically-adaptive time-based reordering window to detect losses. But for connections on which we have not yet seen reordering, this patch considers a packet lost when at least one higher sequence packet is SACKed and the total number of SACKed packets is at least DupThresh. For example, suppose a connection has not seen reordering, and sends 10 packets, and packets 3, 5, 7 are SACKed. RFC6675 considers packets 1 and 2 lost. RACK considers packets 1, 2, 4, 6 lost. There is some small risk of spurious retransmits here due to reordering. However, this is mostly limited to the first flight of a connection on which the sender receives SACKs from reordering. And RFC 6675 and FACK loss detection have a similar risk on the first flight with reordering (it's just that the risk of spurious retransmits from reordering was slightly narrower for those older algorithms due to the margin of 3*MSS). Also the minimum reordering window is reduced from 1 msec to 0 to recover quicker on short RTT transfers. Therefore RACK is more aggressive in marking packets lost during recovery to reduce the reordering window timeouts. Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reviewed-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com> Reviewed-by: Priyaranjan Jha <priyarjha@google.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment