On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:54:02 -0400
Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:49:21 -0400
> > Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In bbr_set_pacing_rate(), which decides whether to cut the pacing
> >> rate, there was some code that considered exiting STARTUP to be
> >> equivalent to the notion of filling the pipe (i.e.,
> >> bbr_full_bw_reached()). Specifically, as the code was structured,
> >> exiting STARTUP and going into PROBE_RTT could cause us to cut the
> >> pacing rate down to something silly and low, based on whatever
> >> bandwidth samples we've had so far, when it's possible that all of
> >> them have been small app-limited bandwidth samples that are not
> >> representative of the bandwidth available in the path. (The code was
> >> correct at the time it was written, but the state machine changed
> >> without this spot being adjusted correspondingly.)
> >>
> >> Fixes: 0f8782ea1497 ("tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control")
> >> Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soh...@google.com>
> >
You are correct, these look more like bug fixes. I was a little concerned
that the changes would be visible but they really aren't user visible.
Should they go to stable as well?
