On 1/5/07, Eddie Kohler <kohler@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am assuming however that the incomplete loss interval is NOT included in the 'hcrx->ccid3hcrx_li_hist' list. If that list DOES include the incomplete loss interval, then the code would need to be different.
Correct.
I don't quite get why one needs dccp_li_hist_recalc_recalcloss. One could do probably do that simpler, and maybe Ian can explain his reasoning. Why is it necessary at all? But RFC3448 does require that one use the incomplete loss interval in the i_tot calculations.
The reason for this is if you are recalculating i_mean based on non loss you should check after every packet received. However this involves quite a lot of calculations on linked lists which are CPU intensive and also stall other processes potentially with locks being taken. So what I've done is looked at how many packets of non loss would be required to alter i_mean. This is then added to the current sequence number and stored in hist_recalc_recalcloss. I then just do a simple comparison on every packet to see if we've met this high water mark.
One nit. If you are following RFC terminology i_tot0 should include non_loss, but in the code i_tot1 does. The code seems correct except for the switching of i_tot0 and i_tot1.
I'll look into that when I get a chance. Thanks Eddie, Ian -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com WAND Network Research Group
