netdev - Re: [QA-TCP] How to send tcp small packages immediately?

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: <544A6E12.2000007@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:19:46 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	"Zhangjie (HZ)" <zhangjie14@...wei.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	liuyongan@...wei.com, qinchuanyu@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [QA-TCP] How to send tcp small packages immediately?

On 10/24/2014 12:41 AM, Zhangjie (HZ) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use netperf to test the performance of small tcp package, with TCP_NODELAY set :
>
> netperf -H 129.9.7.164 -l 100 -- -m 512 -D
>
> Among the packages I got by tcpdump, there is not only small packages, also lost of
> big ones (skb->len=65160).
>
> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 65160
> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0
> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0
> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0
> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 65160
> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0
> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0
> IP 129.9.7.164.34607 > 129.9.7.186.60840: tcp 0
> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 80
> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 512
> IP 129.9.7.186.60840 > 129.9.7.164.34607: tcp 512
>
> SO, how to test small tcp packages? Including TCP_NODELAY, What else should be set?

Well, I don't think there is anything else you can set.  Even with 
TCP_NODELAY set, segment size with TCP will still be controlled by 
factors such as congestion window.

I am ass-u-me-ing your packet trace is at the sender.  I suppose if your 
sender were fast enough compared to the path that might combine with 
congestion window to result in the very large segments.

Not to say there cannot be a bug somewhere with TSO overriding 
TCP_NODELAY, but in broad terms, even TCP_NODELAY does not guarantee 
small TCP segments.  That has been something of a bane on my attempts to 
use TCP for aggregate small-packet performance measurements via netperf 
for quite some time.

And since you seem to have included a virtualization mailing list I 
would also ass-u-me that virtualization is involved somehow.  Knuth only 
knows how that will affect the timing of events, which will be very much 
involved in matters of congestion window and such.  I suppose it is even 
possible that if the packet trace is on a VM receiver that some delays 
in getting the VM running could mean that GRO would end-up making large 
segments being pushed up the stack.

happy benchmarking,

rick jones
--
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