netdev - Re: Throughput regression with `tcp: refine TSO autosizing`

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:44:01 +0100
From:	Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	eyalpe@....mellanox.co.il
Subject: Re: Throughput regression with `tcp: refine TSO autosizing`

On 5 February 2015 at 14:19, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 04:57 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> The intention is to control the queues to the following :
>>
>> 1 ms of buffering, but limited to a configurable value.
>>
>> On a 40Gbps flow, 1ms represents 5 MB, which is insane.
>>
>> We do not want to queue 5 MB of traffic, this would destroy latencies
>> for all concurrent flows. (Or would require having fq_codel or fq as
>> packet schedulers, instead of default pfifo_fast)
>>
>> This is why having 1.5 ms delay between the transmit and TX completion
>> is a problem in your case.

I do get your point. But 1.5ms is really tough on Wi-Fi.

Just look at this:

; ping 192.168.1.2 -c 3
PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.83 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.02 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.98 ms

; ping 192.168.1.2 -c 3 -Q 224
PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.939 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.906 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.946 ms

This was run with no load so batching code in the driver itself should
have no measurable effect. The channel was near-ideal: low noise
floor, cabled rf, no other traffic.

The lower latency ping is when 802.11 QoS Voice Access Category is
used. I also get 400mbps instead of 250mbps in this case with 5 flows
(net/master).

Dealing with black box firmware blobs is a pain.


> Note that TCP stack could detect when this happens, *if* ACK where
> delivered before the TX completions, or when TX completion happens,
> we could detect that the clone of the freed packet was freed.
>
> In my test, when I did "ethtool -C eth0 tx-usecs 1024 tx-frames 64", and
> disabling GSO, TCP stack sends a bunch of packets (a bit less than 64),
> blocks on tcp_limit_output_bytes.
>
> Then we receive 2 stretch ACKS after ~50 usec.
>
> TCP stack tries to push again some packets but blocks on
> tcp_limit_output_bytes again.
>
> 1ms later, TX completion happens, tcp_wfree() is called, and TCP stack
> push following ~60 packets.
>
>
> TCP could  eventually dynamically adjust the tcp_limit_output_bytes,
> using a per flow dynamic value, but I would rather not add a kludge in
> TCP stack only to deal with a possible bug in ath10k driver.
>
> niu has a similar issue and simply had to call skb_orphan() :
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/niu.c:6669:            skb_orphan(skb);

Ok. I tried calling skb_orphan() right after I submit each Tx frame
(similar to niu which does this in start_xmit):

--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_tx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/htt_tx.c
@@ -564,6 +564,8 @@ int ath10k_htt_tx(struct ath10k_htt *htt, struct
sk_buff *msdu)
        if (res)
                goto err_unmap_msdu;

+       skb_orphan(msdu);
+
        return 0;

 err_unmap_msdu:


Now, with {net/master + ath10k GRO + the above} I get 620mbps on a
single flow (even better then before). Wow.

Does this look ok/safe as a solution to you?


Michał
--
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