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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No RTT samples, no persistent congestion #3889
No RTT samples, no persistent congestion #3889
Changes from 9 commits
2d92d2c
414498f
5a790e1
eabdc5c
a5cfbdc
89e99d1
4139dce
1acc648
3ddca85
e4601fe
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if that's correct. What matters is that the packet you use for the start of the persistent congestion period was sent after you already had an RTT sample.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @marten-seemann here.
Consider the case where an endpoint receives the first ACK 10 seconds after sending the first packet (with an RTT of 10ms), then receives the next ACK in 20ms (with RTT of 10ms).
When the second ACK is being processed, the execution would pass through this
if
, and invokeAreAllPacketsLost
. Because all the packets that were sent during the first few seconds are not acked, persistent congestion would be declared.I think we can simply remove these lines, and rely on the fact that the comment in the pseudo-code talking about "edges." We can clarify what "edge" means, if necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if that's sufficient. I think I'd prefer to make the pseudo-code more closely resemble what you'd have to implement. Specifically, to implement this, you'll need a new global variable
time_of_first_rtt_measurement
, or alternativefirst_packet_sent_with_measured_rtt
, and then you'll have to implement a comparison with the time of the packets inlost_packets
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you implement that way? Persistent congestion is declared across all packet number spaces. That means that you'd have to consult if any acks were received in other packet number spaces during the loss period observed in
lost_packets
. But you cannot remember all the moments when acks were received, because the state would be unbounded.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kazuho can you explain your reasoning around "edges" being sufficient?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mjoras If we define "edge" as a lost packet next to a packet that has been acked, having both edges means that a series of packets being lost are surrounded by acks. As there would have been RTT samples obtained for each of the surrounding acks, there is no need for a separate condition that checks if an RTT sample has been previously obtained.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's very cute. I would be okay with that too if we cleaned up what "edge" means and also clarify the notion of which contiguous segment should be considered for the persistent period.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Discussed offline with @janaiyengar, it has turned out that the approach of tweaking the definion of edges does not work well, because the edges (from current time) can be any packet, while RTT can only be established with an ack-eliciting packet.