linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance regression on Xen

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:17:47 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc:	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@...citrix.com>,
	Jonathan Davies <Jonathan.Davies@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@...rix.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Felipe Franciosi <felipe.franciosi@...rix.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "tcp: refine TSO autosizing" causes performance
 regression on Xen

On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:58 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 18:23 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > 
> > > Which means that max(2*skb->truesize, sk->sk_pacing_rate >>10) is
> > > *already* larger for Xen; that calculation mentioned in the comment is
> > > *already* doing the right thing.
> > 
> > Sigh.
> > 
> > 1ms of traffic at 40Gbit is 5 MBytes
> > 
> > The reason for the cap to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_limit_output_bytes is
> > to provide the limitation of ~2 TSO packets, which _also_ is documented.
> > 
> > Without this limitation, 5 MBytes could translate to : Fill the queue,
> > do not limit.
> > 
> > If a particular driver needs to extend the limit, fine, document it and
> > take actions.
> 
> What actions do you have in mind exactly?  It would be great if you
> could suggest how to move forward from here, beside documentation.
> 
> I don't think we can really expect every user that spawns a new VM in
> the cloud to manually echo blah >
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_limit_output_bytes to an init script.  I cannot
> imagine that would work well.

I already pointed a discussion on the same topic for wireless adapters.

Some adapters have a ~3 ms TX completion delay, so the 1ms assumption in
TCP stack is limiting the max throughput.

All I hear here are unreasonable requests, marketing driven.

If a global sysctl is not good enough, make it a per device value.

We already have netdev->gso_max_size and netdev->gso_max_segs
which are cached into sk->sk_gso_max_size & sk->sk_gso_max_segs

What about you guys provide a new 
netdev->I_need_to_have_big_buffers_to_cope_with_my_latencies.

Do not expect me to fight bufferbloat alone. Be part of the challenge,
instead of trying to get back to proven bad solutions.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/