2013-08-05 16:46:07

by remaper

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] net/ipv4: fix the conditions of entering TCP_CA_Disorder state

if have some packets loss by network, the kernel can't reach here, we can see
the tcp_time_to_recover() function:

static bool tcp_time_to_recover(struct sock *sk, int flag)
{
struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
__u32 packets_out;

/* Trick#1: The loss is proven. */
if (tp->lost_out)
return true;
//...
}

when it return true, the following condition will be failed:

//...
if (!tcp_time_to_recover(sk, flag)) {
tcp_try_to_open(sk, flag, prior_unsacked);
return;
}
//...


Signed-off-by: Dong Fang <[email protected]>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 28af45a..8ab31c1 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -2449,7 +2449,7 @@ static void tcp_try_keep_open(struct sock *sk)
struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
int state = TCP_CA_Open;

- if (tcp_left_out(tp) || tcp_any_retrans_done(sk))
+ if (tp->sacked_out || tcp_any_retrans_done(sk))
state = TCP_CA_Disorder;

if (inet_csk(sk)->icsk_ca_state != state) {
--
1.7.1


2013-08-05 18:16:50

by Eric Dumazet

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ipv4: fix the conditions of entering TCP_CA_Disorder state

On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 20:45 -0400, Dong Fang wrote:
> if have some packets loss by network, the kernel can't reach here, we can see
> the tcp_time_to_recover() function:
>
> static bool tcp_time_to_recover(struct sock *sk, int flag)
> {
> struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
> __u32 packets_out;
>
> /* Trick#1: The loss is proven. */
> if (tp->lost_out)
> return true;
> //...
> }
>
> when it return true, the following condition will be failed:
>
> //...
> if (!tcp_time_to_recover(sk, flag)) {
> tcp_try_to_open(sk, flag, prior_unsacked);
> return;
> }
> //...
>

I honestly do not understand this changelog, and how it is related to
the patch.

Also its not 'net/ipv4:' issue but 'tcp:' one


Could you please explain the issue again ?

Thanks !