netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: limit maximum number of packets to mark with xmit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:58:16 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter" <peter.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: limit maximum number of packets to mark with
 xmit_more

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:36:22 +0000
"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter" <peter.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com> wrote:

> On 8/25/17 11:25 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > Under some circumstances, such as with many stacked devices, it is
> > possible that dev_hard_start_xmit will bundle many packets together, and
> > mark them all with xmit_more.
> > 
> > Most drivers respond to xmit_more by skipping tail bumps on packet
> > rings, or similar behavior as long as xmit_more is set. This is
> > a performance win since it means drivers can avoid notifying hardware of
> > new packets repeat daily, and thus avoid wasting unnecessary PCIe or other
> > bandwidth.
> > 
> > This use of xmit_more comes with a trade off because bundling too many
> > packets can increase latency of the Tx packets. To avoid this, we should
> > limit the maximum number of packets with xmit_more.
> > 
> > Driver authors could modify their drivers to check for some determined
> > limit, but this requires all drivers to be modified in order to gain
> > advantage.
> > 
> > Instead, add a sysctl "xmit_more_max" which can be used to configure the
> > maximum number of xmit_more skbs to send in a sequence. This ensures
> > that all drivers benefit, and allows system administrators the option to
> > tune the value to their environment.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Stray thoughts and further questions....
> > 
> > Is this the right approach? Did I miss any other places where we should
> > limit? Does the limit make sense? Should it instead be a per-device
> > tuning nob instead of a global? Is 32 a good default?  
> 
> I actually like the idea of a per-device knob.  A xmit_more_max that's 
> global in a system with 1GbE devices along with a 25/50GbE or more just 
> doesn't make much sense to me.  Or having heterogeneous vendor devices 
> in the same system that have different HW behaviors could mask issues 
> with latency.
> 
> This seems like another incarnation of possible buffer-bloat if the max 
> is too high...
> 
> > 
> >   Documentation/sysctl/net.txt |  6 ++++++
> >   include/linux/netdevice.h    |  2 ++
> >   net/core/dev.c               | 10 +++++++++-
> >   net/core/sysctl_net_core.c   |  7 +++++++
> >   4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/net.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/net.txt
> > index b67044a2575f..3d995e8f4448 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/sysctl/net.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/sysctl/net.txt
> > @@ -230,6 +230,12 @@ netdev_max_backlog
> >   Maximum number  of  packets,  queued  on  the  INPUT  side, when the interface
> >   receives packets faster than kernel can process them.
> >   
> > +xmit_more_max
> > +-------------
> > +
> > +Maximum number of packets in a row to mark with skb->xmit_more. A value of zero
> > +indicates no limit.  
> 
> What defines "packet?"  MTU-sized packets, or payloads coming down from 
> the stack (e.g. TSO's)?

xmit_more is only a hint to the device. The device driver should ignore it unless
there are hardware advantages. The device driver is the place with HW specific
knowledge (like 4 Tx descriptors is equivalent to one PCI transaction on this device).

Anything that pushes that optimization out to the user is only useful for benchmarks
and embedded devices.