In-Reply-To: <20050902134807.GB12617@yakov.inr.ac.ru>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509011713240.6083@guppy.limebrokerage.com> <20050901.154300.118239765.davem@davemloft.net> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509011845040.6083@guppy.limebrokerage.com> <2d02c76a84655d212634a91002b3eccd@psc.edu> <20050902134807.GB12617@yakov.inr.ac.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <4629cfbdf1af310d5c6cffd7178cff5b@psc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ion Badulescu <lists@limebrokerage.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-net@vger.kernel.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org
From: John Heffner <jheffner@psc.edu>
Subject: Re: Possible BUG in IPv4 TCP window handling, all recent 2.4.x/2.6.x kernels
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:16:57 -0400
To: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 917
Lines: 29

On Sep 2, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:

> Hello!
>
>> If you overflow the socket's memory bound, it ends up calling
>> tcp_clamp_window().  (I'm not sure this is really the right thing to 
>> do
>> here before trying to collapse the queue.)
>
> Collapsing is too expensive procedure, it is rather an emergency 
> measure.
> So, tcp collapses queue, when it is necessary, but it must reduce 
> window
> as well.

Right.

I wonder if clamping the window though is too harsh.  Maybe just 
setting the rcv_ssthresh down is better?  Why the distinction between 
in-order and out-of-order data?  Because you expect in-order data to be 
a persistent case?

   -John

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/