Message-ID: <20110106102755.GC12142@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:27:55 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Flow Control and Port Mirroring Revisited

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:33:12PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Back in October I reported that I noticed a problem whereby flow control
> breaks down when openvswitch is configured to mirror a port[1].

Apropos the UDP flow control.  See this
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg150806.html
for some problems it introduces.
Unfortunately UDP does not have built-in flow control.
At some level it's just conceptually broken:
it's not present in physical networks so why should
we try and emulate it in a virtual network?


Specifically, when you do:
# netperf -c -4 -t UDP_STREAM -H 172.17.60.218 -l 30 -- -m 1472
You are asking: what happens if I push data faster than it can be received?
But why is this an interesting question?
Ask 'what is the maximum rate at which I can send data with %X packet
loss' or 'what is the packet loss at rate Y Gb/s'. netperf has
-b and -w flags for this. It needs to be configured
with --enable-intervals=yes for them to work.

If you pose the questions this way the problem of pacing
the execution just goes away.

> 
> I have (finally) looked into this further and the problem appears to relate
> to cloning of skbs, as Jesse Gross originally suspected.
> 
> More specifically, in do_execute_actions[2] the first n-1 times that an skb
> needs to be transmitted it is cloned first and the final time the original
> skb is used.
> 
> In the case that there is only one action, which is the normal case, then
> the original skb will be used. But in the case of mirroring the cloning
> comes into effect. And in my case the cloned skb seems to go to the (slow)
> eth1 interface while the original skb goes to the (fast) dummy0 interface
> that I set up to be a mirror. The result is that dummy0 "paces" the flow,
> and its a cracking pace at that.
> 
> As an experiment I hacked do_execute_actions() to use the original skb
> for the first action instead of the last one.  In my case the result was
> that eth1 "paces" the flow, and things work reasonably nicely.
> 
> Well, sort of. Things work well for non-GSO skbs but extremely poorly for
> GSO skbs where only 3 (yes 3, not 3%) end up at the remote host running
> netserv. I'm unsure why, but I digress.
> 
> It seems to me that my hack illustrates the point that the flow ends up
> being "paced" by one interface. However I think that what would be
> desirable is that the flow is "paced" by the slowest link. Unfortunately
> I'm unsure how to achieve that.

What if you have multiple UDP sockets with different targets
in the guest?

> One idea that I had was to skb_get() the original skb each time it is
> cloned - that is easy enough. But unfortunately it seems to me that
> approach would require some sort of callback mechanism in kfree_skb() so
> that the cloned skbs can kfree_skb() the original skb.
> 
> Ideas would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> [1] http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev_openvswitch.org/2010-October/003806.html
> [2] http://openvswitch.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=openvswitch;a=blob;f=datapath/actions.c;h=5e16143ca402f7da0ee8fc18ee5eb16c3b7598e6;hb=HEAD
--
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