Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753207AbZIYCcy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:32:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752633AbZIYCcw (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:32:52 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f194.google.com ([209.85.216.194]:59054 "EHLO mail-px0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbZIYCcv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:32:51 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MSzBtQNj2AAagwYPBNMz8JyMkg98ENgg1NChJRd9gMn4tChXFXJ20t6xo8iPzDC8X2 gfTIAh5k+HAxAn7mn6R2H/HRltHDvxSmql1eGy8DJopsVrL1kZoPzBy1DWmXda9LO57y MJRss9JyI8hnj/to7GxljoMnzUXyL0r6slMwk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <427999.33681.qm@web63406.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <427999.33681.qm@web63406.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:32:55 +0800 Message-ID: <40c9f5b20909241932k5e1f1d74kf8065e2e06aa4d09@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: TCP stack bug related to F-RTO? From: zhigang gong To: Joe Cao Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jcaoco2002@yahoo.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2715 Lines: 48 On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Joe Cao wrote: > Hello, > > I have found the following behavior with different versions of linux kernel. The attached pcap trace is collected with server (192.168.0.13) running 2.6.24 and shows the problem. Basically the behavior is like this: > > 1. The client opens up a big window, > 2. the server sends 19 packets in a row (pkt #14- #32 in the trace), but all of them are dropped due to some congestion. > 3. The server hits RTO and retransmits pkt #14 in #33 > 4. The client immediately acks #33 (=#14), and the server (seems like to enter F-RTO) expends the window and sends *NEW* pkt #35 & #36.=A0 Timeoute is doubled to 2*RTO; The client immediately sends two Dup-ack to #35 and #36. > 5. after 2*RTO, pkt #15 is retransmitted in #39. > 6. The client immediately acks #39 (=#15) in #40, and the server continues to expand the window and sends two *NEW* pkt #41 & #42. Now the timeoute is doubled to 4 *RTO. > 8. After 4*RTO timeout, #16 is retransmitted. > 9.... > 10. The above steps repeats for retransmitting pkt #16-#32 and each time the timeout is doubled. > 11. It takes a long long time to retransmit all the lost packets and before that is done, the client sends a RST because of timeout. > > The above behavior looks like F-RTO is in effect. ?And there seems to be a bug in the TCP's congestion control and > retransmission algorithm. Why doesn't the TCP on server (running 2.6.24) enter the slow start? As I know, the early implementation hasn't enter slow start if the remote end is in the same network. I'm not sure that of the version 2.6.24. But after I have a look at your trace, I think this is not the point of your problem. The behaviour of your client 192.168.0.82 is very strange. The client always send a packet with error TCP checksum and the 4# to 13# packets sent by the client totally don't conform to the TCP protocol, not only with wrong TCP checksum but also with incorrect seq and ack number. My suggestion is that before you start to investigate the server side's behaviour, you need to correct your client side's TCP/IP stack implementation first. >Why should the server take that long to recover from a short period of packet loss? > > Has anyone else noticed similar problem before? ?If my analysis was wrong, can anyone gives me some pointers to what's really wrong and how to fix it? > > Thanks a lot, > Joe > > PS. Please cc me when this message is replied. > > > -- 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/