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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <544D9B00.4040603@huawei.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:08:16 +0800
From:	"Zhangjie (HZ)" <zhangjie14@...wei.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...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?


Thanks!
On 2014/10/24 23:19, Rick Jones wrote:
> 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,
Yes. Using netperf to send tcp packages frome physical nic has the same problems.
Thanks for your explanation!
> 
> rick jones
> .
> 

-- 
Best Wishes!
Zhang Jie

--
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