Date:	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:10:50 -0800
From:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: undo_retrans counter fixes

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, David Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
> > > > Date: Mon,  7 Feb 2011 14:57:04 -0800
> > > >
> > > > > Fix a bug that undo_retrans is incorrectly decremented when undo_marker is
> > > > > not set or undo_retrans is already 0. This happens when sender receives
> > > > > more DSACK ACKs than packets retransmitted during the current
> > > > > undo phase. This may also happen when sender receives DSACK after
> > > > > the undo operation is completed or cancelled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix another bug that undo_retrans is incorrectly incremented when
> > > > > sender retransmits an skb and tcp_skb_pcount(skb) > 1 (TSO). This case
> > > > > is rare but not impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > Neither is harmful to "fix" but I think they're partially also checking
> > > for things which shouldn't cause problems... E.g., undo_retrans is only
> > > used after checking undo_marker's validity first so I don't think
> > > undo_marker check is exactly necessary there (but on the other hand it
> > > does no harm)...
> >
> > logically we should check the validity of undo_marker/undo_retrans
> > before we use them? The current code has no problem if
> > tcp_fastretrans_alert() always call tcp_try_undo_*  functions whenever
> > undo_marker != 0 and undo_retrans == 0. I don't think that's always
> > true.
>
> We certainly should be letting the undo_retrans to underflow that in this
> your patch has merit (the added tp->undo_retrans check).
>
> However, the only users are:
>
> static inline int tcp_may_undo(struct tcp_sock *tp)
> {
>         return tp->undo_marker && (!tp->undo_retrans ...)
>
> and:
>
> static void tcp_try_undo_dsack(struct sock *sk)
> {
>        struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
>
>        if (tp->undo_marker && !tp->undo_retrans) {
>
>
> ...which check that undo_retrans is valid.
>
> > > The tcp_retransmit_skb problem I don't understand at all as we should be
> > > fragmenting or resetting pcount to 1 (the latter is true only if all
> > > bugfixes were included to the kernel where >1 pcount for a rexmitted skb
> > > was seen). If pcount is indeed >1 we might have other issues too somewhere
> >
> > We found that sometimes pcount > 1 on real servers. This change keeps
> > the retrans_out/undo_retrans counters consistent.
>
> There's still some bug then I guess... It might be related to the issues
> seen by those other guys who were complaining about small segments with
> >1 pcount breaking their hardware (few months ago). For the record, the
> last fix is from 2.6.31 or so.
>
> Like I said, I don't oppose this change anyway:
>
> > > but I fail to remember immediately what they would be. That change is not
> > > bad though since using +/-1 is something we should be getting rid of
> > > anyway and on long term it would be nice to make tcp_retransmit_skb to be
> > > able to take advantage of TSO anyway whenever possible.
>
> ...it certainly won't hurt to be on the safe side here if/when something
> else is wrong.
>
> > > I also noticed that the undo_retrans code in sacktag side is still doing
> > > undo_retrans-- ops which could certainly cause real miscounts, though
> > > it is extremely unlikely due to the fact that DSACK should be sent
> > > immediately for a single segment at a time (so the sender would need to
> > > split+recollapse in between).
> >
> > I have the same doubt but our servers never hit this condition (pcount
> > 1). So I keep this part intact.
>
> I could think of some scenario you cannot even reproduce in a large scale
> tests, unlikely indeed :-). ...Or too stable connectivity on the sender
> side. But I've changed my mind... the -1 operation is the correct one as
> we could otherwise overestimate due to pcount=1->2 split after the
> retransmission that triggered the DSACK (now that I remember this, I think
> I've once thought this line through already earlier... I'll try to write a
> comment one day there).
>
> For -rc/next purposes I don't see any big enough reasons to withhold:
>
> Acked-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
>
> ...but if you want this to stables too I don't think it's minimal w.r.t.
> undo_marker check.
>

Dave/Ilpo: can this patch get applied or it needs more
clarification/justification? Thanks.


Yuchung
--
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