netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] tcp: TCP_NOTSENT

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: <51EEAD54.2040603@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:20:36 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] tcp: TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT socket option

On 07/23/2013 08:44 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 08:26 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> I see that now the service demand increase is more like 8%, though there
>> is no longer a throughput increase.  Whether an 8% increase is not a bad
>> effect on the CPU usage of a single flow is probably in the eye of the
>> beholder.
>
> Again, it seems you didn't understand the goal of this patch.
>
> It's not trying to get lower cpu usage, but lower memory usage, _and_
> proper logical splitting of the write queue.

Right - I am questioning whether it is worth the CPU increase.

> Heh, you are trying the old crap again ;)

Yes - why do you seem to be resisting?-)

> Why should we care of setting buffer sizes at all, when we have
> autotuning ;)

Because it keeps growing the buffer too large?-)

> RTT can vary from 50us to 200ms, rate can vary dynamically as well, some
> AQM can trigger with whatever policy, you can have sudden reorders
> because some router chose to apply per packet load balancing :
>
> - You do not want to hard code buffer sizes, but instead let TCP stack
> tune it properly.

I agree that is far nicer if it can be counted upon to work well.

> Sure, I can probably can find out what are the optimal settings for a
> given workload and given network to get minimal cpu usage.
>
> But the point is having the stack finds this automatically.
>
> Further tweaks can be done to avoid a context switch per TSO packet for
> example. If we allow 10 notsent packets, we can probably  wait to have 5
> packets before doing a wakeup.

Isn't this change really just trying to paper-over the autotuning's 
over-growing of the socket buffers?  Or are you considering it an 
extension of the auto-tuning heuristics?

If your 20Gbit test setup needed only 256KB socket buffers (figure 
pulled form the ether) to get to 17 Gbit/s, isn't the autotuning's 
growing them to several MB a bug in the autotuning?

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