Yoshi,
I have attached a patch. Let me know if this fixes the problem.
jayanth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > This issue is a combination of mbuf cluster size and the
> > TF_MORETOCOME flag.
>
> > if (len) {
> > if (len == tp->t_maxseg)
> > goto send;
> > if (!(tp->t_flags & TF_MORETOCOME) &&
> > (idle || tp->t_flags & TF_NODELAY) &&
> > (tp->t_flags & TF_NOPUSH) == 0 &&
> > len + off >= so->so_snd.sb_cc)
> > goto send;
>
> When I changed the condition, the problem we had did not occur. I am wondering
> what is the right fix.
> Yoshi
>
>
--- tcp_output.c Fri Sep 28 11:15:32 2001
+++ tcp_output.c.new Fri Sep 28 12:05:03 2001
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@
* If there is some data or critical controls (SYN, RST)
* to send, then transmit; otherwise, investigate further.
*/
- idle = (tp->snd_max == tp->snd_una);
+ idle = (tp->t_flags & TF_LASTIDLE) ? 1 : (tp->snd_max == tp->snd_una);
if (idle && (ticks - tp->t_rcvtime) >= tp->t_rxtcur) {
/*
* We have been idle for "a while" and no acks are
@@ -156,6 +156,13 @@
tp->snd_cwnd = tp->t_maxseg * ss_fltsz_local;
else
tp->snd_cwnd = tp->t_maxseg * ss_fltsz;
+ }
+ tp->t_flags &= ~TF_LASTIDLE;
+ if (idle) {
+ if (tp->t_flags & TF_MORETOCOME) {
+ tp->t_flags |= TF_LASTIDLE;
+ idle = 0;
+ }
}
again:
sendalot = 0;
--- tcp_var.h Fri Sep 28 11:11:48 2001
+++ tcp_var.h.new Fri Sep 28 12:04:09 2001
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@
#define TF_SENDCCNEW 0x08000 /* send CCnew instead of CC in SYN */
#define TF_MORETOCOME 0x10000 /* More data to be appended to sock */
#define TF_LQ_OVERFLOW 0x20000 /* listen queue overflow */
+#define TF_LASTIDLE 0x40000 /* idle, when previously called */
int t_force; /* 1 if forcing out a byte */
tcp_seq snd_una; /* send unacknowledged */
