Re: [tcpm] Questions about TLP

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADE2120499 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 10:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwEiMbyJz_4K for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 May 2019 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04125120485 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2019 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id p21so3953894wmc.0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 May 2019 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uYZFZhj9XXITRJrXQuV3Zi3AJ6Vs2jgIvOMTDVJVE4g=; b=YCzfb2Xpx+ZYaYeMiiiPETU9OyIKjCFrF5icuuMd2CgXuZrMW+jzz6ZjMf282wDQmU CS/GiJRgL4sszeqRlPLUodGKoBt6zVfKW+4WpsOwlpcJ5tWxCFFxNO/VVPio2hZpKoqt OXO6vNGfxv0Z6Ow8aThE/cWL7M6P2xmHNJGmEpBJF3ITalNZl4VhLVfE0CKdzJAyg4XS orrCN1d7aP+3aWNsHXjV0LNXqVqMz8kYf0sx3OTZqwFk0qO8Q1nFBfm1e+E0WMiWHVA0 jkkzlFog4whqnsFewpmqqSwMfUcIBDuHvye7r+T4qj7t0ayJ12HaIpB2Jd3Xz9Id/Q8T oY4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uYZFZhj9XXITRJrXQuV3Zi3AJ6Vs2jgIvOMTDVJVE4g=; b=K3YHo/jyLOG2L346/tOmcnEh8ayjX4xmXhvzAki78B+gfLGG4jDlkePtWmfd71jTSa rPClVUvaubD2FzapW5oxeAWOBWKcLw5aov9NavX0itMgxz25XWfr/XDWwqsZhVErlJGZ SYFWyjzn7FfjsOdMqZILUjwjJmfIB1AWFpjLriZF91quNI7f+E9DXRIDPJu9kESyvB4A fRLouRjAwrwbVeJP9WSFUDJd2kCfbcWjs4QodUkK9SLFFfbiimf/PcucyZcwSciuYRgc 1Kv644A2tuQ1r00KhTdLaQpKn5/GHroTwVfAhFeNXor6aeULCZaNt86zMq/q9QaC8OCv JHCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUIDJ9Kgn2rM/GdWZKS8PyxXw614jPR57sMM6lauU2RUmCjG6Q7 hTNqRGNL8UjbyX6quiqkX2Eeh/z0DMmlHjSqgt7IEX1lrcQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxgVI2PsAY/stjirS5a71rsyLRVZci4EL9yVF9sTV21XO7Pj95x1cqQdtcBUwtQeHdyVTgk2OZzgTaponkIJ7w=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb04:: with SMTP id u4mr3217140wmj.0.1556817943850; Thu, 02 May 2019 10:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BL0PR2101MB1043C5ABE55E48572EB20C62C3340@BL0PR2101MB1043.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAK6E8=fFR_VT8wMCzUW288HrN91NrbryerVLjOH5=6=bCEJLjw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR21MB125645C6DFCD605AE73E97FEBC340@BYAPR21MB1256.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR21MB125645C6DFCD605AE73E97FEBC340@BYAPR21MB1256.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 10:25:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=d06pqD=VY1t4rKeLTpcrAGaNCYJgjkLWTH0fhxbsML9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Olson <maolson@microsoft.com>
Cc: Yi Huang <huanyi=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/CsiecwbzK2fC9Z0jyWNuXmjLELo>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Questions about TLP
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 17:25:48 -0000

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:09 AM Matt Olson <maolson@microsoft.com>; wrote:
>
> Also, section 6.5.1 Step 1 is presented as a complete set of conditions for scheduling a PTO, but it is missing a bullet point for TLPRxtOut.
Thanks for checking: but checking TLPRxtOut is not necessary and is
not preferred when scheduling a probe -- the goal is to prevent more
than one probe inflight, so checking right before TLPRxtOut sending the next one
allows the best coverage of application-limited writes (burst-idle-burst-...).




>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>;
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 11:33 PM
> To: Yi Huang <huanyi=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org; Matt Olson <maolson@microsoft.com>;
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Questions about TLP
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:48 PM Yi Huang <huanyi=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:
> >
> > Hi RACK/TLP authors,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have the following questions (page numbers refer to draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-05):
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.In page 16, it says “Finally, if the time at which an RTO would fire (here denoted "TCP_RTO_expire") is sooner than the computed time for the PTO, then a probe is scheduled to be sent at that earlier time.” What does this TCP_RTO_expire actually mean? Does it mean there is another RTO timer (possibly started some time in the past) running along with PTO or just RTT + 4*RTTVar + Now()? Also, why would another probe be sent at RTO expiration time instead of treating it like RTO and collapsing the cwnd?
>
> TCP_RTO_expire() should return a timeout value for regular RTO, i.e.
> SRTT + 4*RTTVAR + Now()
> We use TCP_RTO_expire() because many implementations including Linux do not use the exact RFC formula
>
> The reason it's not treated as a regular RTO is to avoid resetting congestion window to 1. The rationale is if the probe was sent within min(PTO, RTO) and was delivered successfully, there's no need to reset congestion window and re-start slow-start, similar to the rationale of Reno's fast recovery reducing window to ssthresh instead of 1. We have found this strategy benefits wireless connections, as the chance of spurious RTO is high due to the delay variation.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 2.In page 18 section 6.6, a new variable TLPRxtOut is defined and it is stated that TLPRxtOut is used to guarantee that there is only one outstanding TLP retransmission.. However, it is not clear to me when TLPRxtOut should be really used. Should it be used in 6.5.1 Step. 1 (checking whether we should and can schedule a TLP) or in TLP_send_probe()?
>
> This is in
>
> 6.6.2.  Recording loss probe states
>
>    Senders MUST only send a TLP loss probe retransmission if TLPRxtOut
>    is false.  This ensures that at any given time a connection has at
>    most one outstanding TLP retransmission.  This allows the sender to
>
> but I agree it'd be more clear to include this in TLP_send_probe() pseudo code. I'd incorporate in the next rev.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Yi
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftcpm&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmaolson%40micr
> > osoft.com%7C66db44672e3d4101d72908d6cec82001%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> > cd011db47%7C1&amp;sdata=n8rp5Emowm459iSKolhIP1hFXBs8pZjsGG2iy3OBAno%3D
> > &amp;reserved=0