On 11/21/06, Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[CCID 3]: Simplify control flow in the calculation of t_ipi
This patch performs a simplifying (performance) optimisation:
In each call of the inline function ccid3_calc_new_t_ipi(), the state is
tested against TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK. This is expensive when the function
is called very often. A simpler solution, implemented by this patch, is
to adapt the control flow.
Background:
-----------
Upon sender initialisation, the values of t_ipi, t_nom = t_0, delta, as
well as the initial packet sending rate, are all constants [RFC 3448, 4.2].
Until feedback arrives, these values are not changed. Hence it is not necessary
to recalculate t_ipi, t_nom, delta until the first feedback has arrived, i.e.
as long as the state TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK persists.
Justification:
--------------
ccid3_calc_new_t_ipi() is called only in two places:
* in ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv(); here the state is never
TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK, due to
if (hctx->ccid3hctx_state == TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK) {
ccid3_hc_tx_set_state(sk, TFRC_SSTATE_FBACK);
/* ... */
* in ccid3_hc_tx_packet_sent()
==> Only in the second case, the state might be TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK and this
only
during the initial phase of a connection.
Solution:
---------
This patch avoids such a recalculation by a simple change of control flow in
ccid3_hc_tx_packet_sent(). As a consequence, ccid3_calc_new_t_ipi() is never
called in
the state TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK, hence the test against this state can safely
be removed.
In addition, a problematic comment in ccid3_calc_new_t_ipi() was removed:
* the first part of the comment (initial t_ipi = 1 second) is correct
* the second part of the comment is not correct wrt. [RFC 3448, 4.4]
Why is the second part of the comment wrong?
RFC 3448, 4.4:
4.4. Expiration of nofeedback timer
If the nofeedback timer expires, the sender should perform the
following actions:
1) Cut the sending rate in half. If the sender has received feedback
from the receiver, this is done by modifying the sender's cached
copy of X_recv (the receive rate). Because the sending rate is
limited to at most twice X_recv, modifying X_recv limits the
current sending rate, but allows the sender to slow-start,
doubling its sending rate each RTT, if feedback messages resume
reporting no losses.
If the sending rate is halved, doesn't it implies the inter packet
interval is doubled?
Otherwise I'm fine with the patch, just waiting for comments above
this specific part (comment removal).
- Arnaldo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
