netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid expensive pskb_expand

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: <4F904FFE.60703@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:48:46 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid expensive pskb_expand_head() calls

On 04/19/2012 10:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 10:20 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> By copying them to smaller buffers? Or just by altering truesize?
>> Wasn't the whole point of fixing all the broken truesize settings to
>> accurately account for memory consumed?
>
> I checked, their truesize are OK (1024+256) for ixgbe driver.
> They could be little smaller, but not that much. (512 + 256)
>
> No, its only the sk_rcvbuf is small for a tcp sender,
> and sk_add_backlog() makes sure we dont queue more than sk_rcvbuf
> bytes in backlog.

Sounds like a variation on the theme of wildly divergent 
inbound/outbound bandwidth and constraining ACKs constraining throughput 
- only with buffer sizes.

87380 is the default SO_RCVBUF right?  That should have allowed 
87380/1280 or 68 ACKs to be queued.  Without ACK stretching from GRO 
that should have covered 68 * 2896 or 196928 bytes.  Based on your 
previous 54 usec to transmit 64 KB that would be 162+ usecs to 
accumulate those ACKs, so I guess a question becomes if TCP can be 
held-off processing ACKs for > 162 usecs, and if so and that cannot be 
changed, the autotuning will have to start increasing SO_SNDBUF 
alongside so_sndbuf even if the endpoint is not receiving.  As a 
handwave, since TCP does not know the buffer size(s) used by the driver, 
by 1 MSS for every 2 MSS it adds to SO_SNDBUF.  Or find some way to do 
it "on demand" in the about to drop path.

That or bare ACKs have to be excluded from the overhead checks somehow I 
guess, or there be more aggressive copying into smaller buffers.

Thankfully, when applications make explicit setsockopt() calls, they 
tend (ok, perhaps that is a bit of a guess) to set both SO_SNDBUF and 
SO_RCVBUF at the same time.

rick
--
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