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]

Message-ID: <552F9F60.7090406@eu.citrix.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:39:12 +0100
From:	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@...citrix.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
CC:	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 04/15/2015 07:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Do not expect me to fight bufferbloat alone. Be part of the challenge,
> instead of trying to get back to proven bad solutions.

I tried that.  I wrote a description of what I thought the situation
was, so that you could correct me if my understanding was wrong, and
then what I thought we could do about it.  You apparently didn't even
read it, but just pointed me to a single cryptic comment that doesn't
give me enough information to actually figure out what the situation is.

We all agree that bufferbloat is a problem for everybody, and I can
definitely understand the desire to actually make the situation better
rather than dying the death of a thousand exceptions.

If you want help fighting bufferbloat, you have to educate people to
help you; or alternately, if you don't want to bother educating people,
you have to fight it alone -- or lose the battle due to having a
thousand exceptions.

So, back to TSQ limits.  What's so magical about 2 packets being *in the
device itself*?  And what does 1ms, or 2*64k packets (the default for
tcp_limit_output_bytes), have anything to do with it?

Your comment lists three benefits:
1. better RTT estimation
2. faster recovery
3. high rates

#3 is just marketing fluff; it's also contradicted by the statement that
immediately follows it -- i.e., there are drivers for which the
limitation does *not* give high rates.

#1, as far as I can tell, has to do with measuring the *actual* minimal
round trip time of an empty pipe, rather than the round trip time you
get when there's 512MB of packets in the device buffer.  If a device has
a large internal buffer, then having a large number of packets
outstanding means that the measured RTT is skewed.

The goal here, I take it, is to have this "pipe" *exactly* full; having
it significantly more than "full" is what leads to bufferbloat.

#2 sounds like you're saying that if there are too many packets
outstanding when you discover that you need to adjust things, that it
takes a long time for your changes to have an effect; i.e., if you have
5ms of data in the pipe, it will take at least 5ms for your reduced
transmmission rate to actually have an effect.

Is that accurate, or have I misunderstood something?

 -George
--
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/