Message-ID: <5080279F.80008@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:00:31 -0500
From:	Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>
To:	enh <enh@...gle.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: listen(2) backlog changes in or around Linux 3.1?

Hi Elliott,

I see the same behavior with your test program.
The connect() keeps succeeding even though accept() is not performed.
It pauses after 4 connections for a while and then periodically keeps 
adding few (2 I think).

But the server side end points are terminated too. You will see only the 
first 2 sessions on the server side.
If you modify your test program to say read or poll the sockets you 
should get a termination notification on them I think .

The behavior overall looks fine in my opinion.  But it could be a change 
of behavior for your test program.

Venkat

On 10/16/2012 6:31 PM, enh wrote:
> boiling things down to a short C++ program, i see that i can reproduce
> the behavior even on 2.6 kernels. if i run this, i see 4 connections
> immediately (3 + 1, as i'd expect)... but then about 10s later i see
> another 2. and every few seconds after that, i see another 2. i've let
> this run until i have hundreds of connect(2) calls that have returned,
> despite my small listen(2) backlog and the fact that i'm not
> accept(2)ing.
>
> so i guess the only thing that's changed with newer kernels is timing
> (hell, since i only see newer kernels on newer hardware, it might just
> be a hardware thing).
>
> and clearly i don't understand what the listen(2) backlog means any more.
>
> #include<netinet/ip.h>
> #include<netinet/tcp.h>
> #include<sys/types.h>
> #include<sys/socket.h>
> #include<iostream>
> #include<stdlib.h>
> #include<string.h>
> #include<errno.h>
>
> void dump_ti(int fd) {
>   tcp_info ti;
>   socklen_t tcp_info_length = sizeof(tcp_info);
>   int rc = getsockopt(fd, SOL_IP, TCP_INFO,&ti,&tcp_info_length);
>   if (rc == -1) {
>     std::cout<<  "getsockopt rc "<<  rc<<  ": "<<  strerror(errno)<<  "\n";
>     return;
>   }
>
>   std::cout<<  "ti.tcpi_unacked="<<  ti.tcpi_unacked<<  "\n";
>   std::cout<<  "ti.tcpi_sacked="<<  ti.tcpi_sacked<<  "\n";
> }
>
> void connect_to(sockaddr_in&  sa) {
>   int s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
>   if (s == -1) {
>     abort();
>   }
>
>   int rc = connect(s, (sockaddr*)&sa, sizeof(sockaddr_in));
>   std::cout<<  "connect = "<<  rc<<  "\n";
> }
>
> int main() {
>   int ss = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
>   std::cout<<  "socket fd "<<  ss<<  "\n";
>
>   sockaddr_in sa;
>   memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
>   sa.sin_family = AF_INET;
>   sa.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY);
>   sa.sin_port = htons(9877);
>   int rc = bind(ss, (sockaddr*)&sa, sizeof(sa));
>   std::cout<<  "bind rc "<<  rc<<  ": "<<  strerror(errno)<<  "\n";
>   std::cout<<  "bind port "<<  sa.sin_port<<  "\n";
>
>   rc = listen(ss, 1);
>   std::cout<<  "listen rc "<<  rc<<  ": "<<  strerror(errno)<<  "\n";
>   dump_ti(ss);
>
>   while (true) {
>    connect_to(sa);
>    dump_ti(ss);
>   }
>
>   return 0;
> }
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, enh<enh@...gle.com>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Venkat Venkatsubra
>> <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>  wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 6:40 PM, enh wrote:
>>>> i used to use the following hack to unit test connect timeouts: i'd
>>>> call listen(2) on a socket and then deliberately connect (backlog + 3)
>>>> sockets without accept(2)ing any of the connections. (why 3? because
>>>> Stevens told me so, and experiment backed him up. see figure 4.10 in
>>>> his UNIX Network Programming.)
>>>>
>>>> with "old" kernels, 2.6.35-ish to 3.0-ish, this worked great. my next
>>>> connect(2) to the same loopback port would hang indefinitely. i could
>>>> even unblock the connect by calling accept(2) in another thread. this
>>>> was awesome for testing.
>>>>
>>>> in 3.1 on ARM, 3.2 on x86 (Ubuntu desktop), and 3.4 on ARM, this no
>>>> longer works. it doesn't seem to be as simple as "the constant is no
>>>> longer 3". my tests are now flaky. sometimes they work like they used
>>>> to, and sometimes an extra connect(2) will succeed. (or, if i'm in
>>>> non-blocking mode, my poll(2) will return with the non-blocking socket
>>>> that's trying to connect now ready.)
>>>>
>>>> i'm guessing if this changed in 3.1 and is still changed in 3.4,
>>>> whatever's changed wasn't an accident. but i haven't been able to find
>>>> the right search terms to RTFM. i also finally got around to grepping
>>>> the kernel for the "+ 3", but wasn't able to find that. (so i'd be
>>>> interested to know where the old behavior came from too.)
>>>>
>>>> my least worst workaround at the moment is to use one of RFC5737's
>>>> test networks, but that requires that the device have a network
>>>> connection, otherwise my connect(2)s fail immediately with
>>>> ENETUNREACH, which is no use to me. also, unlike my old trick, i've
>>>> got no way to suddenly "unblock" a slow connect(2) (this is useful for
>>>> unit testing the code that does the poll(2) part of the usual
>>>> connect-with-timeout implementation).
>>>> https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/44563/
>>>>
>>>> hopefully someone here can shed some light on this? ideally someone
>>>> will have a workaround as good as my old trick. i realize i was
>>>> relying on undocumented behavior, and i'm happy to have to check
>>>> /proc/version and behave appropriately, but i'd really like a way to
>>>> keep my unit tests!
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>    elliott
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>> Hi Elliott,
>>>
>>> In BSD I think the backlog used to be reset to 3/2 times that passed by the
>>> user. So, 2 becomes 3.
>>> Probably the 1/2 times increase was to accommodate the ones in
>>> partial/incomplete queue.
>>> In Linux is it possible you were getting the same behavior before the below
>>> commit ?
>>> Since the check used to be "backlog+1" a 2 will behave as 3 ?
>> i don't think so, because with<= 3.0 kernels i used to have a backlog
>> of 1 and be able to make _4_ connections before my next connect would
>> hang. but this>  to>= change is at least something for me to
>> investigate...
>>
>>> commit 8488df894d05d6fa41c2bd298c335f944bb0e401
>>> Author: Wei Dong<weid@...css.fujitsu.com>
>>> Date:   Fri Mar 2 12:37:26 2007 -0800
>>>
>>>      [NET]: Fix bugs in "Whether sock accept queue is full" checking
>>>
>>>          when I use linux TCP socket, and find there is a bug in function
>>> sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>
>>>          When a new SYN comes, TCP module first checks its validation. If
>>> valid,
>>>      send SYN,ACK to the client and add the sock to the syn hash table. Next
>>>      time if received the valid ACK for SYN,ACK from the client. server will
>>>      accept this connection and increase the sk->sk_ack_backlog -- which is
>>>      done in function tcp_check_req().We check wether acceptq is full in
>>>      function tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock().
>>>
>>>      Consider an example:
>>>
>>>       After listen(sockfd, 1) system call, sk->sk_max_ack_backlog is set to
>>>      1. As we know, sk->sk_ack_backlog is initialized to 0. Assuming accept()
>>>      system call is not invoked now.
>>>
>>>      1. 1st connection comes. invoke sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>       sk->sk_ack_backlog=0 sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1, function return 0 accept
>>> this connection.
>>>       Increase the sk->sk_ack_backlog
>>>      2. 2nd connection comes. invoke sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>       sk->sk_ack_backlog=1 sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1, function return 0 accept
>>> this connection.
>>>       Increase the sk->sk_ack_backlog
>>>      3. 3rd connection comes. invoke sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>       sk->sk_ack_backlog=2 sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1, function return 1.
>>> Refuse this connection.
>>>
>>>      I think it has bugs. after listen system call. sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1
>>>      but now it can accept 2 connections.
>>>
>>>      Signed-off-by: Wei Dong<weid@...css.fujitsu.com>
>>>      Signed-off-by: David S. Miller<davem@...emloft.net>
>>>
>>> Venkat
> --
> 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

--
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