From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 804463BA8E for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:24:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id t1so7696902ite.5 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:24:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OQM8gBMJdhCRkh8f8HeY34bOtmzRbIMqvmVhvX7Cta4=; b=lqu1XIqrqtDgFHCr5JIUFHrP5W/ZxQxCkutb3w/Zy3BS71jSyIolvcx2PyDPWu+vuO rlQIFgVMj5G8c6dlvsXA7lkCxWHHYBBt1QCI7Luzt3yIOsVYZPN53P8O9arpqAXplT4a X0MCnI9HoVasT0hArYXSbm3m+6UxJ/dxj0CrNzAlkHHr+joykDToDNU+aEvHOSLUtagq NLZoeJIFeqgCDdT46tN/XeIrdvpi/HTmOaPIE7qZ9jlOY+9sJzIK9hIJqQqCVXPnnsXr OMz/GAv5dum2F8e9ats8t7dSpb/1ybaue64SB75uYZM2wP5faiXaAk8LXxq2BSHI8Pno MbYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OQM8gBMJdhCRkh8f8HeY34bOtmzRbIMqvmVhvX7Cta4=; b=oCqSiXVbHoJ9WSq0VCmQupGf9C2tEAFPegvCcUtsSuKiWBeovLmV09P2MSHXMy0Uf5 WWDzDWuHUiwe3c+fayaI0qcnBdqZ6VOBeUJY2o5Xshcs18fPV4GIlOXfs2hvg97JgpI/ c5H2KsiSW0iXhooqX/6JVMEB0oCyYMBegTxlhrQQGGVsnVzgbw8RNrL72qejtNvqUsi6 cqJ4uUL5brqILpFzNuXqJaHMRRPIbsDh0G9Dr+ACFXU3mrC+NyvF0fZfoteRFL5/320h IpVYqv9Hpnv9T9k53UvWMcqxK2ixTGlS3U1DSLWksp0tmAjfdohTfTTNkTSw2/7WTO6r L17g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5TjdRlKXXJLMT4QUx9eJVrdXIlbm2f4xwymV0+uXC2tFhgX1IC 5jF0AGklxaxM+KE9PRAfDco= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMY1D1wjkNhMEoMNZR86tT6nwp+9bxCthgaSJVi9ZUvDojbpDzYPUi0egEReOvt6VWySFsssCQ== X-Received: by 10.36.3.65 with SMTP id e62mr2195193ite.99.1512037484005; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:24:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from edumazet-glaptop3.lan (c-67-180-167-114.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.180.167.114]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id n132sm2146054itn.25.2017.11.30.02.24.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:24:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1512037480.19682.10.camel@gmail.com> From: Eric Dumazet To: Jonathan Morton , Michael Welzl Cc: David Ros , bloat Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:24:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <4D0E907C-E15D-437C-B6F7-FF348346D615@gmx.de> <7B92DF4D-B6B5-4A64-9E10-119DCA2D4A6F@ifi.uio.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1+deb9u1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] benefits of ack filtering X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:24:44 -0000 I agree that TCP itself should generate ACK smarter, on receivers that are lacking GRO. (TCP sends at most one ACK per GRO packets, that is why we did not feel an urgent need for better ACK generation) It is actually difficult task, because it might need an additional timer, and we were reluctant adding extra complexity for that. An additional point where huge gains are possible is to add TSO autodefer while in recovery. Lacking TSO auto defer explains why TCP flows enter a degenerated behavior, re-sending 1-MSS packets in response to SACK flood. On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 09:48 +0200, Jonathan Morton wrote: > I do see your arguments.  Let it be known that I didn't initiate the > ack-filter in Cake, though it does seem to work quite well. > With respect to BBR, I don't think it depends strongly on the return > rate of acks in themselves, but rather on the rate of sequence number > advance that they indicate.  For this purpose, having the receiver > emit sparser but still regularly spaced acks would be better than > having some middlebox delete some less-predictable subset of them.  > So I think BBR could be a good testbed for AckCC implementation, > especially as it is inherently paced and thus doesn't suffer from > burstiness as a conventional ack-clocked TCP might. > The real trouble with AckCC is that it requires implementation on the > client as well as the server.  That's most likely why Google hasn't > tried it yet; there are no receivers in the wild that would give them > valid data on its effectiveness.  Adding support in Linux would help > here, but aside from Android devices, Linux is only a relatively > small proportion of Google's client traffic - and Android devices are > slow to pick up new kernel features if they can't immediately turn it > into a consumer-friendly bullet point. > Meanwhile we have highly asymmetric last-mile links (10:1 is typical, > 50:1 is occasionally seen), where a large fraction of upload > bandwidth is occupied by acks in order to fully utilise the download > bandwidth in TCP.  Any concurrent upload flows have to compete with > that dense ack flow, which in various schemes is unfair to either the > upload or the download throughput. > That is a problem as soon as you have multiple users on the same > link, eg. a family household at the weekend.  Thinning out those acks > in response to uplink congestion is a solution.  Maybe not the best > possible solution, but a deployable one that works. > - Jonathan Morton > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat