On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 08:45:39AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> ...under two conditions:
> 
> - the remote peer is advertising a bigger value to us, meaning that a
>   bigger sending buffer is likely to benefit throughput, AND

I think this condition is redundant: if the remote peer is advertising
less, we'll clamp new_wnd_to_tap to that value anyway.

> - this is not a short-lived connection, where the latency cost of
>   retransmissions would be otherwise unacceptable.
> 
> By doing this, we can reliably trigger TCP buffer size auto-tuning (as
> long as it's available) on bulk data transfers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tcp.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c
> index 2220059..454df69 100644
> --- a/tcp.c
> +++ b/tcp.c
> @@ -353,6 +353,13 @@ enum {
>  #define LOW_RTT_TABLE_SIZE		8
>  #define LOW_RTT_THRESHOLD		10 /* us */
>  
> +/* Try to avoid retransmissions to improve latency on short-lived connections */
> +#define SHORT_CONN_BYTES		(16ULL * 1024 * 1024)
> +
> +/* Temporarily exceed available sending buffer to force TCP auto-tuning */
> +#define SNDBUF_BOOST_FACTOR		150 /* % */
> +#define SNDBUF_BOOST(x)			((x) * SNDBUF_BOOST_FACTOR / 100)

For the short term, the fact this works empirically is enough.  For
the longer term, it would be nice to have a better understanding of
what this "overcommit" amount is actually estimating.

I think what we're looking for is an estimate of the number of bytes
that will have left the buffer by the time the guest gets back to us.  So:
	<connection throughput> * <guest-side RTT>

Alas, I don't see a way to estimate either of those from the
information we already track - we'd need additional bookkeeping.

>  #define ACK_IF_NEEDED	0		/* See tcp_send_flag() */
>  
>  #define CONN_IS_CLOSING(conn)						\
> @@ -1137,6 +1144,9 @@ int tcp_update_seqack_wnd(const struct ctx *c, struct tcp_tap_conn *conn,
>  
>  		if ((int)sendq > SNDBUF_GET(conn)) /* Due to memory pressure? */
>  			limit = 0;
> +		else if ((int)tinfo->tcpi_snd_wnd > SNDBUF_GET(conn) &&
> +			 tinfo->tcpi_bytes_acked > SHORT_CONN_BYTES)

This is pretty subtle, I think it would be worth having some rationale
in a comment, not just the commit message.

> +			limit = SNDBUF_BOOST(SNDBUF_GET(conn)) - (int)sendq;
>  		else
>  			limit = SNDBUF_GET(conn) - (int)sendq;
>  
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson