netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: reduce cpu usage under tcp memory pressure when SO

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:59:17 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: reduce cpu usage under tcp memory pressure
 when SO_SNDBUF is set



On 08/11/2015 12:12 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 11:03 -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> 
>>
>> Yes, so the test case I'm using to test against is somewhat contrived.
>> In that I am simply allocating around 40,000 sockets that are idle to
>> create a 'permanent' memory pressure in the background. Then, I have
>> just 1 flow that sets SO_SNDBUF, which results in the: poll(), write() loop.
>>
>> That said, we encountered this issue initially where we had 10,000+
>> flows and whenever the system would get into memory pressure, we would
>> see all the cpus spin at 100%.
>>
>> So the testcase I wrote, was just a simplistic version for testing. But
>> I am going to try and test against the more realistic workload where
>> this issue was initially observed.
>>
> 
> Note that I am still trying to understand why we need to increase socket
> structure, for something which is inherently a problem of sharing memory
> with an unknown (potentially big) number of sockets.
> 

I was trying to mirror the wakeups when SO_SNDBUF is not set, where we
continue to trigger on 1/3 of the buffer being available, as the
sk->sndbuf is shrunk. And I saw this value as dynamic depending on
number of sockets and read/write buffer usage. So that's where I was
coming from with it.

Also, at least with the .config I have the tcp_sock structure didn't
increase in size (although struct sock did go up by 8 and not 4).

> I suggested to use a flag (one bit).
> 
> If set, then we should fallback to tcp_wmem[0] (each socket has 4096
> bytes, so that we can avoid starvation)
> 
> 
> 

Ok, I will test this approach.

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