Message-ID: <5537AF76.1020108@akamai.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:25:58 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: set SOCK_NOSPACE under memory presure

On 04/21/2015 05:33 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:05:13 +0000 (GMT)
>
>> Under tcp memory pressure, calling epoll_wait() in edge triggered
>> mode after -EAGAIN, can result in an indefinite hang in epoll_wait(),
>> even when there is suffcient memory available to continue making
>> progress. The problem is that __sk_mem_schedule() can return 0,
>> under memory pressure without having set the SOCK_NOSPACE flag. Thus,
>> even though all the outstanding packets have been acked, we never
>> get the EPOLLOUT that we are expecting from epoll_wait().
>>
>> This issue is currently limited to epoll when used in edge trigger
>> mode, since 'tcp_poll()', does in fact currently set SOCK_NOSPACE.
>> This is sufficient for poll()/select() and epoll() in level trigger
>> mode. However, in edge trigger mode, epoll() is relying on the write
>> path to set SOCK_NOSPACE. So I view this patch as bringing us into
>> sync with poll()/select() and epoll() level trigger behavior.
> Can you explain exactly how epoll in edge trigger mode is
> depending upon SOCK_NOSPACE being set in this way?  I tried
> to read the epoll code and it just seems to call ->poll()
> in the normal way when returning event state.

In edge trigger mode, when we receive a wakeup event we
call ->poll() in the normal way, *but* we do not leave the event
as still pending. (Specifically, in the epoll() code we are not
re-adding it (fs/eventpoll.c:ep_send_events_proc())). This is
because we are only interested in the 'edge' or the event
going high. In level trigger mode, we do leave the event
pending if its 'high', such that it will re-trigger again for us on
the next epoll_wait().

EPOLL(7) is clear that in edge-trigger mode we can only do
epoll_wait() after read/write return -EAGAIN. Thus, in the
case of the socket write, we are relying on the fact that
tcp_sendmsg()/network layer is going to issue a wakeup
for us at some point in the future when we get -EAGAIN.

This all works fine in the case you pointed out where we
have exceeded the sk->sndbuf and set SOCK_NOSPACE.
However, when we return -EAGAIN from the write path
b/c we are over the tcp memory limits and not b/c we are
over the sndbuf, we are never going to get another wakeup
(since SOCK_NOSPACE is not set in this case). Level trigger
avoids this since the subsequent epoll_wait() is going to
re-try the ->poll() (and set SOCK_NOSPACE if it fails).

Now, in the memory failure case, we are not really
waiting for the buffer to empty, but rather for there to be
memory more generally available. So it could be argued
that we need to implement a wakeup here based on memory
being available as opposed to the write queue emptying.
That is one potential option here.

I think the other one is the route I was proposing, which was
to treat the out of memory case, in the same way as the
sk->sndbuf queue full case, as select(), poll() and epoll() level
trigger are currently doing. And potentially add maybe an
-ENOSPC return if the write queue really is empty...I thought
that approach made sense b/c even under memory pressure
(over sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 1), but not over
sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 2)) we continue to guarantee a
minimum sndbuf size (implying we can keep making progress).
That said, there is a case, over sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 2),
where we do not guarantee the minimum buffer size, but I
think in practice that is very hard to hit (since we are reducing
usage over sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 1) aggressively).

There is also the case where we actually are out of memory
on the system, ie kmalloc() etc. are failing, in which case
we could maybe return -ENOSPC, or else we would potentially
need a larger change to wait on memory being available
as opposed to the buffer emptying.

Thanks,

-Jason
--
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