Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756628AbZKENgW (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:36:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756521AbZKENgV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:36:21 -0500 Received: from mail-forward2.uio.no ([129.240.10.71]:47087 "EHLO mail-forward2.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756567AbZKENgU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:36:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4AF2D4D3.6060606@simula.no> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:36:19 +0100 From: Andreas Petlund User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Allen Simpson CC: Linux Kernel Network Developers , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= , Arnd Hannemann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "shemminger@vyatta.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , Christian Samsel Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: TCP thin-stream detection References: <52481f5b4edfdbd96dcde46aed403fcf.squirrel@webmail.uio.no> <4AEB109A.7090506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4AEB109A.7090506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 15 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 16 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 510 max rcpts/h 37 ratelimit 0 X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: BBE01A50EFD6C40F29C4C7CF0A3978002BDB3463 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 128.39.37.254 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 25 total 5510 max/h 49 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3492 Lines: 67 William Allen Simpson wrote: > I'm finding it hard to follow 3 threads, for the 3 parts of the patch. > > As I mentioned in one of these threads, I've plenty of experience with > designing and implementing protocols for gaming. And it seems to me that > you're making changes to the entire TCP stack to make up for shortcomings > in the implementor's design. Yet, these changes require application > implementors to set a sockopt that's only available in Linux. Unlikely, > as they probably don't even keep track of such things.... > The target is not only games, but for instance SSH sessions, RDP or VNC, stock trading services, sensor networks and so forth. There are a lot of time-dependent applications that shows thin stream properties. Many of these use TCP, and will continue to use it. Some of these applications use UDP as default, but fall back to TCP if there is a problem with the UDP connection (for instance Skype). By providing better latency for thin streams, we can increase the service level for all these applications. Our experience is that at least some designers of interactive/time-dependent applications are skilled enough and concerned enough to investigate whether options exist that may improve the applications they are designing. Of course there are exceptions, but for open-sourced software, there will be people who can provide this input. If the argument is that there is no need for customised options because developers are stupid, we could strip away a lot of the existing network code. > I've already suggested the end-to-end interest list, where you'll find many > of us with a strong interest in this topic. I've been reading end-to-end for several years, and I think I will take this discussion to that list eventually. We have discussed whether we should take this to end-to-end first, and netdev after, but decided to go here for the following reasons: 1) We have working patches that we wanted to contribute. 2) The modifications are implemented as optional. 3) When active, the modifications handle a special case of TCP streams that we have shown to have minimal impact on general TCP behaviour. Also, in my experience, the end-to-end list discussions tend to digress, making it difficult to keep the discussion to the special case that we address. Since we wanted technical and practical feedback that would help us to refine the modifications in the patches in addition to the discussion on transport protocols, we chose to go to netdev first. > The IETF has two related working groups: > tcpm -- tcp modifications > tsvwg -- general transport, including sctp modifications There are plenty of examples of TCP mechanisms present in the Linux kernel that has not been standardised, for instance TCP CUBIC, the default congestion control for many Linux distributions at this time. We have a set of patches, and a large body of experiments that shows them to be effective for the thin-stream scenario without any significant disadvantages. Please consider this before discarding the proposition based on a general principle of standardisation. We believe that the thin-stream modifications will provide extra value to Linux networking. Best regards, Andreas -- 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/