On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote: >> >> The original motivation for only allowing TLP in the CA_Open state was >> to be conservative and avoid having the TLP impose extra load on the >> bottleneck when it may be congested. Plus if there are any SACKed >> packets in the SACK scoreboard then there are other existing >> mechanisms to do speedy loss recovery. > Neal I like your idea of covering more states in TLP. but shouldn't we > also fix the tso_deferral_logic to work better w/ PRR in CWR state, b/c > it's a general transmission issue.
Yes, I agree it's also worthwhile to see if we can make PRR and TSO deferral play well together. Sorry, I should have been more clear about that. neal
