Message-ID: <c453e272-fae9-adf7-0645-b0ea3a539fe8@candelatech.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:27:30 -0800
From:   Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TCP many-connection regression (bisected to 4.5.0-rc2+)

On 01/23/2018 03:21 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 15:10 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 01/23/2018 02:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 14:09 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>> On 01/23/2018 02:07 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 13:49 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/22/2018 10:16 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 09:28 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>>>>>> My test case is to have 6 processes each create 5000 TCP IPv4 connections to each other
>>>>>>>> on a system with 16GB RAM and send slow-speed data.  This works fine on a 4.7 kernel, but
>>>>>>>> will not work at all on a 4.13.  The 4.13 first complains about running out of tcp memory,
>>>>>>>> but even after forcing those values higher, the max connections we can get is around 15k.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both kernels have my out-of-tree patches applied, so it is possible it is my fault
>>>>>>>> at this point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any suggestions as to what this might be caused by, or if it is fixed in more recent kernels?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will start bisecting in the meantime...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Ben
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately I have no idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you using loopback flows, or have I misunderstood you ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How loopback connections can be slow-speed ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Eric, looks like it is one of your commits that causes the issue
>>>>>> I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some more details on my specific test case I used to bisect:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have two ixgbe ports looped back, configured on same subnet, but with different IPs.
>>>>>> Routing table rules, SO_BINDTODEVICE, binding to specific IPs on both client and server
>>>>>> side let me send-to-self over the external looped cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have 2 mac-vlans on each physical interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I created 5 server-side connections on one physical port, and two more on one of the mac-vlans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the client-side, I create a process that spawns 5000 connections to the corresponding server side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End result is 25,000 connections on one pair of real interfaces, and 10,000 connections on the
>>>>>> mac-vlan ports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the passing case, I get very close to all 5000 connections on all endpoints quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the failing case, I get a max of around 16k connections on the two physical ports.  The two mac-vlans have 10k connections
>>>>>> across them working reliably.  It seems to be an issue with 'connect' failing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> connect(2074, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(33012), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.1.1.5")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress)
>>>>>> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 2075
>>>>>> fcntl(2075, F_GETFD)                    = 0
>>>>>> fcntl(2075, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC)        = 0
>>>>>> setsockopt(2075, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE, "eth4\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 16) = 0
>>>>>> setsockopt(2075, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
>>>>>> bind(2075, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(0), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.1.1.4")}, 16) = 0
>>>>>> getsockopt(2075, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [87380], [4]) = 0
>>>>>> getsockopt(2075, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, [16384], [4]) = 0
>>>>>> setsockopt(2075, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [0], 4) = 0
>>>>>> fcntl(2075, F_GETFL)                    = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR)
>>>>>> fcntl(2075, F_SETFL, O_ACCMODE|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
>>>>>> connect(2075, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(33012), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.1.1.5")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress)
>>>>>> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 2076
>>>>>> fcntl(2076, F_GETFD)                    = 0
>>>>>> fcntl(2076, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC)        = 0
>>>>>> setsockopt(2076, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE, "eth4\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 16) = 0
>>>>>> setsockopt(2076, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
>>>>>> bind(2076, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(0), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.1.1.4")}, 16) = 0
>>>>>> getsockopt(2076, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [87380], [4]) = 0
>>>>>> getsockopt(2076, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, [16384], [4]) = 0
>>>>>> setsockopt(2076, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, [0], 4) = 0
>>>>>> fcntl(2076, F_GETFL)                    = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR)
>>>>>> fcntl(2076, F_SETFL, O_ACCMODE|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
>>>>>> connect(2076, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(33012), sin_addr=inet_addr("10.1.1.5")}, 16) = -1 EADDRNOTAVAIL (Cannot assign requested address)
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ea8add2b190395408b22a9127bed2c0912aecbc8 is the first bad commit
>>>>>> commit ea8add2b190395408b22a9127bed2c0912aecbc8
>>>>>> Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>>>>> Date:   Thu Feb 11 16:28:50 2016 -0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      tcp/dccp: better use of ephemeral ports in bind()
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Implement strategy used in __inet_hash_connect() in opposite way :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Try to find a candidate using odd ports, then fallback to even ports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      We no longer disable BH for whole traversal, but one bucket at a time.
>>>>>>      We also use cond_resched() to yield cpu to other tasks if needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      I removed one indentation level and tried to mirror the loop we have
>>>>>>      in __inet_hash_connect() and variable names to ease code maintenance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>>>>>      Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :040000 040000 3af4595c6eb6d331e1cba78a142d44e00f710d81 e0c014ae8b7e2867256eff60f6210821d36eacef M	net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will be happy to test patches or try to get any other results that might help diagnose
>>>>>> this problem better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Problem is I do not see anything obvious here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
>>>>
>>>> [root@...003-e3v2-13100124-f20x64 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
>>>> 10000	61001
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also you probably could use IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT socket option
>>>>> before the bind()
>>>>
>>>> I'll read up on that to see what it does...
>>>
>>> man 7 ip
>>>
>>>        IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT (since Linux 4.2)
>>>               Inform
>>> the kernel to not reserve an ephemeral  port
>>>               when  using
>>> bind(2)  with a port number of 0.  The
>>>               port will later be
>>> automatically  chosen  at  con‐
>>>               nect(2) time, in a way
>>> that allows sharing a source
>>>               port as long as the 4-tuple
>>> is unique.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I found that.
>>
>> It appears this option works well for my case, and I see 30k connections across my pair of e1000e
>> (though the NIC is wretching again, so I guess its issues are not fully resolved).
>>
>> I tested this on my 4.13.16+ kernel.
>>
>> But that said, maybe there is still some issue with the patch I bisected to, so if you have
>> other suggestions, I can back out this IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT feature and re-test.
>>
>> Also, I had to increase /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem to get 30k connections to work without
>> the kernel spamming:
>>
>> Jan 23 15:02:41 lf1003-e3v2-13100124-f20x64 kernel: TCP: out of memory -- consider tuning tcp_mem
>> Jan 23 15:02:41 lf1003-e3v2-13100124-f20x64 kernel: TCP: out of memory -- consider tuning tcp_mem
>>
>> This is a 16 GB RAM system, and I did not have to tune this on the 4.5.0-rc2+ (good) kernels
>> to get the similar performance.  I was testing on ixgbe there though, possibly that is part
>> of it, or maybe I just need to force tcp_mem to be larger on more recent kernels??
>
>
> Since linux-4.2 tcp_mem[0,1,2] defaults are 4.68%, 6.25%, 9.37% of
> physical memory.
>
> It used to be twice that in older kernels.
>
> It is also possible that some change in TCP congestion or autotuning
> allows each of your TCP flow to store more data in its write queue,
> if your application is pushing bulk data as much as it can.
>
> It is virtually not possible to change anything in the kernel without
> zero impact on very pathological use cases.

Yes, but also pathological use cases may uncover a real issue that normal
users will not often notice....  Based on the commit message, it seems you
expected no real regressions with that patch, but at least in my case, I see
large ones, so something might be off with it.

>
> tcp_wmem[2] is 4MB.
>
> 30,000 * 4MB = 120 GB
>
> Definitely more than your physical memory.

I'll spend some time looking at the tcp-mem issue now that I have a work-around for
the many connection issues...

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists