linux-kernel - Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

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: <2938690.9Cepv1nWrF@natalenko.name>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:35:03 +0100
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To:     Holger Hoffstätte 
        <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Van Jacobson <vanj@...gle.com>, Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

Hi.

On pátek 16. února 2018 17:26:11 CET Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> These are very odd configurations. :)
> Non-preempt/100 might well be too slow, whereas PREEMPT/1000 might simply
> have too much overhead.

Since the pacing is based on hrtimers, should HZ matter at all? Even if so, 
poor 1 Gbps link shouldn't drop to below 100 Mbps, for sure.

> BBR in general will run with lower cwnd than e.g. Cubic or others.
> That's a feature and necessary for WAN transfers.

Okay, got it.

> Something seems really wrong with your setup. I get completely
> expected throughput on wired 1Gb between two hosts:
> /* snip */

Yes, and that's strange :/. And that's why I'm wondering what I am missing 
since things cannot be *that* bad.

> /* snip */
> Please note that BBR was developed to address the case of WAN transfers
> (or more precisely high BDP paths) which often suffer from TCP throughput
> collapse due to single packet loss events. While it might "work" in other
> scenarios as well, strictly speaking delay-based anything is increasingly
> less likely to work when there is no meaningful notion of delay - such
> as on a LAN. (yes, this is very simplified..)
> 
> The BBR mailing list has several nice reports why the current BBR
> implementation (dubbed v1) has a few - sometimes severe - problems.
> These are being addressed as we speak.
> 
> (let me know if you want some of those tech reports by email. :)

Well, yes, please, why not :).

> /* snip */
> I'm not sure testing the old version without builtin pacing is going to help
> matters in finding the actual problem. :)
> Several people have reported severe performance regressions with 4.15.x,
> maybe that's related. Can you test latest 4.14.x?

Observed this on v4.14 too but didn't pay much attention until realised that 
things look definitely wrong.

> Out of curiosity, what is the expected use case for BBR here?

Nothing special, just assumed it could be set as a default for both WAN and 
LAN usage.

Regards,
  Oleksandr