Message-ID: <48C5A9A9.9040503@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:39:37 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Christopher Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
CC:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning

Christopher Snook wrote:
> Hey folks --
> 
> We frequently get requests from customers for a tunable to disable Nagle 
> system-wide, to be bug-for-bug compatible with Solaris. 

Which ndd setting is that in Solaris, and is it an explicit disabling of 
Nagle (which wouldn't be much better than arbitrary setting of 
TCP_NODELAY by apps anyway), or is it a tuning of the send size against 
which Nagle is comparing?

> We routinely reject these requests, as letting naive TCP apps
> accidentally flood the network is considered harmful. Still, it would
> be very nice if we could reduce Nagle-induced latencies system-wide,
> if we could do so without disabling Nagle completely.
> 
> If you write a multi-threaded app that sends lots of small messages 
> across TCP sockets, and you do not use TCP_NODELAY, you'll often see 40 
> ms latencies as the network stack waits for more senders to fill an 
> MTU-sized packet before transmitting. 

How does an application being multi-threaded enter into it?  IIRC, it is 
simply a matter of wanting to go "write, write, read" on the socket 
where the writes are sub-MSS.

> Even worse, these apps may work fine across the LAN with a 1500 MTU
> and then counterintuitively perform much worse over loopback with a
> 16436 MTU.

Without knowing if those apps were fundamentally broken and just got 
"lucky" at a 1500 byte MTU we cannot really say if it is truly 
counterintuitive :)

> To combat this, many apps set TCP_NODELAY, often without the abundance 
> of caution that option should entail.  Other apps leave it alone, and 
> suffer accordingly.
> 
> If we could simply lower this latency, without changing the fundamental 
> behavior of the TCP stack, it would be a great benefit to many 
> latency-sensitive apps, and discourage the unnecessary use of TCP_NODELAY.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't know the TCP stack intimately enough to understand 
> what side effects this might have.  Can someone more familiar with the 
> nagle implementations please enlighten me on how this could be done, or 
> why it shouldn't be?


IIRC, the only way to lower the latency experienced by an application 
running into latencies associated with poor interaction with Nagle is to 
either start generating immediate ACKnowledgements at the reciever, 
lower the standalone ACK timer on the receiver, or start a very short 
timer on the sender.  I doubt that (m)any of those are terribly palatable.

Below is some boilerplate I have on Nagle that isn't Linux-specific:

<begin>

$ cat usenet_replies/nagle_algorithm

 > I'm not familiar with this issue, and I'm mostly ignorant about what
 > tcp does below the sockets interface. Can anybody briefly explain what
 > "nagle" is, and how and when to turn it off? Or point me to the
 > appropriate manual.

In broad terms, whenever an application does a send() call, the logic
of the Nagle algorithm is supposed to go something like this:

1) Is the quantity of data in this send, plus any queued, unsent data,
greater than the MSS (Maximum Segment Size) for this connection? If
yes, send the data in the user's send now (modulo any other
constraints such as receiver's advertised window and the TCP
congestion window). If no, go to 2.

2) Is the connection to the remote otherwise idle? That is, is there
no unACKed data outstanding on the network. If yes, send the data in
the user's send now. If no, queue the data and wait. Either the
application will continue to call send() with enough data to get to a
full MSS-worth of data, or the remote will ACK all the currently sent,
unACKed data, or our retransmission timer will expire.

Now, where applications run into trouble is when they have what might
be described as "write, write, read" behaviour, where they present
logically associated data to the transport in separate 'send' calls
and those sends are typically less than the MSS for the connection.
It isn't so much that they run afoul of Nagle as they run into issues
with the interaction of Nagle and the other heuristics operating on
the remote. In particular, the delayed ACK heuristics.

When a receiving TCP is deciding whether or not to send an ACK back to
the sender, in broad handwaving terms it goes through logic similar to
this:

a) is there data being sent back to the sender? if yes, piggy-back the
ACK on the data segment.

b) is there a window update being sent back to the sender? if yes,
piggy-back the ACK on the window update.

c) has the standalone ACK timer expired.

Window updates are generally triggered by the following heuristics:

i) would the window update be for a non-trivial fraction of the window
- typically somewhere at or above 1/4 the window, that is, has the
application "consumed" at least that much data? if yes, send a
window update. if no, check ii.

ii) would the window update be for, the application "consumed," at
least 2*MSS worth of data? if yes, send a window update, if no wait.

Now, going back to that write, write, read application, on the sending
side, the first write will be transmitted by TCP via logic rule 2 -
the connection is otherwise idle. However, the second small send will
be delayed as there is at that point unACKnowledged data outstanding
on the connection.

At the receiver, that small TCP segment will arrive and will be passed
to the application. The application does not have the entire app-level
message, so it will not send a reply (data to TCP) back. The typical
TCP window is much much larger than the MSS, so no window update would
be triggered by heuristic i. The data just arrived is < 2*MSS, so no
window update from heuristic ii. Since there is no window update, no
ACK is sent by heuristic b.

So, that leaves heuristic c - the standalone ACK timer. That ranges
anywhere between 50 and 200 milliseconds depending on the TCP stack in
use.

If you've read this far :) now we can take a look at the effect of
various things touted as "fixes" to applications experiencing this
interaction.  We take as our example a client-server application where
both the client and the server are implemented with a write of a small
application header, followed by application data.  First, the
"default" case which is with Nagle enabled (TCP_NODELAY _NOT_ set) and
with standard ACK behaviour:

               Client                     Server
              Req Header        ->
                                <-        Standalone ACK after Nms
              Req Data          ->
                                <-        Possible standalone ACK
                                <-        Rsp Header
              Standalone ACK    ->
                                <-        Rsp Data
     Possible standalone ACK    ->


For two "messages" we end-up with at least six segments on the wire.
The possible standalone ACKs will depend on whether the server's
response time, or client's think time is longer than the standalone
ACK interval on their respective sides. Now, if TCP_NODELAY is set we
see:


               Client                     Server
              Req Header        ->
              Req Data          ->
                                <-        Possible Standalone ACK after Nms
                                <-        Rsp Header
                                <-        Rsp Data
      Possible Standalone ACK   ->

In theory, we are down two four segments on the wire which seems good,
but frankly we can do better.  First though, consider what happens
when someone disables delayed ACKs

               Client                     Server
              Req Header        ->
                                <-        Immediate Standalone ACK
              Req Data          ->
                                <-        Immediate Standalone ACK
                                <-        Rsp Header
    Immediate Standalone ACK    ->
                                <-        Rsp Data
    Immediate Standalone ACK    ->

Now we definitly see 8 segments on the wire.  It will also be that way
if both TCP_NODELAY is set and delayed ACKs are disabled.

How about if the application did the "right" think in the first place?
That is sent the logically associated data at the same time:


               Client                     Server
              Request        ->
                             <-           Possible Standalone ACK
                                <-        Response
    Possible Standalone ACK    ->

We are down to two segments on the wire.

For "small" packets, the CPU cost is about the same regardless of data
or ACK.  This means that the application which is making the propper
gathering send call will spend far fewer CPU cycles in the networking
stack.

<end>

Now, there are further wrinkles :)  Is that application trying to 
pipeline requests on the application - then we have paths that can look 
rather like the separate header from data cases above until the 
concurrent requests outstanding get above the MSS threshold.

My recollection of the original Nagle writeups is the intention is to 
optimize the ratio of data to data+headers.  Back when those writeups 
were made, 536 byte MSSes were still considered pretty large, and 1460 
would have been positively spacious.  I doubt that anyone were 
considering the probability of a 16384 byte MTU.  It could be argued 
that in such an environment of the timeperiod, where stack tunables 
weren't all the rage and the MSS ranges were reasonably well bounded, it 
was a sufficient expedient to base the "is this enough data" decision 
off the MSS for the connection.  You certainly couldn't do any better 
than an MSS's worth of data per segment and segment sizes weren't 
astronomical.  Now that MTU's and MSS's can get so much larger, that 
expedient may indeed not be so worthwhile.   An argument could be made 
that a ratio of data to data plus headers of say 0.97 (1448/1500) is 
"good enough" and that requiring a ratio of 16384/16436 = 0.9968 is 
taking things too far by default.

That said, I still don't like covering the backsides of poorly written 
applications doing two or more writes for logically associated data.

rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists