netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [07/08] [TCP] Fix BIC congestion avoidance algorithm error

To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [07/08] [TCP] Fix BIC congestion avoidance algorithm error
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:22:02 -0400
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stable@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050405164758.GH17299@xxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stable@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20050405164539.GA17299@xxxxxxxxx> <20050405164758.GH17299@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:47:59AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> 
> While redoing BIC for the split up version, I discovered that the
> existing 2.6.11 code doesn't really do binary search. It ends up
> being just a slightly modified version of Reno.  See attached graphs
> to see the effect over simulated 1mbit environment.

I hate to be a stickler for the rules, but does this really meet this
criteria?

 - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
   problem..." type thing.)

If the congestion control alogirthm is "Reno-like", what is
user-visible impact to users?  There are OS's out there with TCP/IP
stacks that are still using Reno, aren't there?  

Knowing the answer to the question, "How does this bug `bother' either
users or network administrators?" would probably be really helpful.

                                                - Ted

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>