Accumulator logic for MAX_DATA updates #2553
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nibanks
added
Bug: Core
nibanks
reviewed
Mar 18, 2022
nibanks
approved these changes
Mar 18, 2022
nibanks
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2022
nibanks
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When many small streams are used, it's possible that we never actually send MAX_STREAM_DATA updates. The current logic ties MAX_STREAM_DATA and (connection-wide) MAX_DATA updates together, which causes the peer to be eventually connection FC blocked in this case.
This PR adds an accumulator variable for connectionwide delivered bytes. When the accumulator hits a fraction (I propose 1/4 but haven't carefully thought about it) of the conn FC window, we send a MAX_DATA frame to open the window.