Re: [PATCH next] Revert "dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event"

2016-12-06 Thread David Miller
From: Florian Westphal Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:23:00 +0100 > Neal Cardwell says: > If I am reading the code correctly, then I would have two concerns: > 1) Has that been tested? That seems like an extremely dramatic > decrease in cwnd. For example, if the cwnd is 80, and there are 40 >

Re: [PATCH next] Revert "dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event"

2016-12-05 Thread Neal Cardwell
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Florian Westphal wrote: > Neal Cardwell says: > If I am reading the code correctly, then I would have two concerns: > 1) Has that been tested? That seems like an extremely dramatic > decrease in cwnd. For example, if the cwnd is 80, and there are 40 > ACKs

[PATCH next] Revert "dctcp: update cwnd on congestion event"

2016-12-05 Thread Florian Westphal
Neal Cardwell says: If I am reading the code correctly, then I would have two concerns: 1) Has that been tested? That seems like an extremely dramatic decrease in cwnd. For example, if the cwnd is 80, and there are 40 ACKs, and half the ACKs are ECE marked, then my back-of-the-envelope