Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 07:09:22 +0900
From:   Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>
To:     <kafai@...com>
CC:     <ast@...nel.org>, <benh@...zon.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuni1840@...il.com>,
        <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/8] tcp: Migrate TCP_ESTABLISHED/TCP_SYN_RECV sockets in accept queues.

From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:50:17 -0800
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:40:18PM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > This patch lets reuseport_detach_sock() return a pointer of struct sock,
> > which is used only by inet_unhash(). If it is not NULL,
> > inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate() migrates TCP_ESTABLISHED/TCP_SYN_RECV
> > sockets from the closing listener to the selected one.
> > 
> > Listening sockets hold incoming connections as a linked list of struct
> > request_sock in the accept queue, and each request has reference to a full
> > socket and its listener. In inet_csk_reqsk_queue_migrate(), we unlink the
> > requests from the closing listener's queue and relink them to the head of
> > the new listener's queue. We do not process each request, so the migration
> > completes in O(1) time complexity. However, in the case of TCP_SYN_RECV
> > sockets, we will take special care in the next commit.
> > 
> > By default, we select the last element of socks[] as the new listener.
> > This behaviour is based on how the kernel moves sockets in socks[].
> > 
> > For example, we call listen() for four sockets (A, B, C, D), and close the
> > first two by turns. The sockets move in socks[] like below. (See also [1])
> > 
> >   socks[0] : A <-.      socks[0] : D          socks[0] : D
> >   socks[1] : B   |  =>  socks[1] : B <-.  =>  socks[1] : C
> >   socks[2] : C   |      socks[2] : C --'
> >   socks[3] : D --'
> > 
> > Then, if C and D have newer settings than A and B, and each socket has a
> > request (a, b, c, d) in their accept queue, we can redistribute old
> > requests evenly to new listeners.
> I don't think it should emphasize/claim there is a specific way that
> the kernel-pick here can redistribute the requests evenly.  It depends on
> how the application close/listen.  The userspace can not expect the
> ordering of socks[] will behave in a certain way.

I've expected replacing listeners by generations as a general use case.
But exactly. Users should not expect the undocumented kernel internal.


> The primary redistribution policy has to depend on BPF which is the
> policy defined by the user based on its application logic (e.g. how
> its binary restart work).  The application (and bpf) knows which one
> is a dying process and can avoid distributing to it.
> 
> The kernel-pick could be an optional fallback but not a must.  If the bpf
> prog is attached, I would even go further to call bpf to redistribute
> regardless of the sysctl, so I think the sysctl is not necessary.

I also think it is just an optional fallback, but to pick out a different
listener everytime, choosing the moved socket was reasonable. So the even
redistribution for a specific use case is a side effect of such socket
selection.

But, users should decide to use either way:
  (1) let the kernel select a new listener randomly
  (2) select a particular listener by eBPF

I will update the commit message like:
The kernel selects a new listener randomly, but as the side effect, it can
redistribute packets evenly for a specific case where an application
replaces listeners by generations.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists