Re: Deadlocking in the transport

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <> Wed, 10 January 2018 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130E41275AB for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pX1KPKLo6yd6 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 021CE12420B for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k18so22485911ioc.11 for <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Yl3EsbkKLj/+ujy/8DhT/Nc9TinX6YUNTDf4yqOacvk=; b=K3ZqAf/VdK92oiC4fRs69axHNlv1NkwYfLHFoy/zpt/rEnIFOZ/hnusqGTti33JWfO BAYK0hRSrT+6KZwzBI8ZraIAv1GDT1V/zipfq4+eDpIy7821vwXm/myip/Sw9FO7lWfV 27hy1UJAZwnQ9HG2VokYreZyjraTTegtnprhWpytDs9xEOOPi275uZW6slmJ70ObD1MA +OdV5TV5+kiIGJlk2zBQnV/IfktRpmXRxMeam5DoCqKtXVSlt05oUHaR42Dlbn8XFZkZ mYEwhgM1Mz0ueLtXHZDjXu32yi3pcqykec6Kp1w1xoMJq4sFOTgqN/4Z1YFu4bRVC1iP /ovw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Yl3EsbkKLj/+ujy/8DhT/Nc9TinX6YUNTDf4yqOacvk=; b=aNT2IPt/TJedxZj0NiB3eDJ9ppI3F4PjutdAxpPPl5Nw6gffj3wSjZeOOQFzNkCn4q byLLXB+IkZNp0zxPdEiyO/BMcusiWmGDW0qdfTFs+c38R04nh9iIBOR7QcOS1zmi1tQa RuFFjhCTQfO6tCzFkrF2R0mH54tlPTZVNSXCXmy4TPJAWfy+QkS5jFsGcMwcIiNb64mm nrKowujiePzyIIAQFEubwOCXwciDCTbzFxGj+Ujuu9ZFFs9QDP6Dk+7i4I5T/MnrF45Z wHoncga4wb9v3c0WW3sKuM0Z5GbP9yE60FXle0jSZP4cdLtJ2h8yaDSAUSMgbEncRnJo OvEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLqGc8LlUrYkkFUJh0ouQtZWk5780Mnmmf69Hs0SRFcO/lkO2z+ /k9pv9oblQ2FJBYjVgIFrDkzv2o5H5GPYZQX75Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov98WQnim3cVZjfEyOijX0eonKMJ5FIogVPEJ2dbL6lDGKViQ3xU1B6kWilnm1BFwRpNeIk3eKbPhwjr+hkchI=
X-Received: by with SMTP id g3mr19204217ioa.297.1515592287342; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:26 -0800
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <20180110070542.GA27331@ubuntu-dmitri> <>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:51:26 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Deadlocking in the transport
To: Jana Iyengar <>, QUIC WG <>, Martin Thomson <>, Ian Swett <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114ac180e957e805626c538d"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:51:30 -0000

Blocking at source is not practical if feeding several very large files via
a mmap pointer to the API for deferred round robin transmission so all
files get equal opportunity to get through. In this case only small pieces
could be delivered at a time before the allocation must check if there is
are more transmission credits.

Kind Regards,
Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen

On 10 January 2018 at 14.46.36, Ian Swett ( wrote:

I would agree that #4 is the right direction.  GQUIC also does #4, because
it forces all headers to be written before any requests that may depend
upon them are written.

If the application knows there is a dependency, it should be the
application's responsibility to deal with it, not the transport's, which
also points to #4(or maybe #1).

I also think there are use cases for data transfer that is not a stream and
does not consume flow control, but I don't think they solve every problem
and I don't think they should be necessary here.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Dmitri Tikhonov <> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:49:28PM -0800, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> > Protocols that create inter-stream dependency should be able to express
> > that in priorities down to the transport, which I believe is expected to
> be
> > part of the API. I believe that handles this issue, doesn't it?
> When it comes to priorities, the QUIC I-D gives implementations
> some leeway [1].  One cannot guarantee that a conforming
> implementation will not deadlock.
>   - Dmitri.
> 1.