netdev - Re: de-indirect TCP congestion control

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]

Message-ID: <f3e43da6-e549-bad1-c75b-76bbf4fff216@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:03:35 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: de-indirect TCP congestion control



On 03/12/2018 12:48 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
>> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:45:52 -0700
>>
>>> Since indirect calls are expensive, and now even more so, perhaps we should figure out
>>> a way to make the default TCP congestion control hooks into direct calls.
>>> 99% of the users just use the single CC module compiled into the kernel.
>>
>> Who is this magic user with only one CC algorithm enabled in their
>> kernel?  I want to know who this dude is?
>>
>> I don't think it's going to help much since people will have I think
>> at least two algorithms compiled into nearly everyone's tree.
>>
>> Distributions will enable everything.
>>
>> Google is going to have at least two algorithms enabled.
>>
>> etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> Getting rid of indirect calls is a fine goal, but the precondition you
>> are mentioning to achieve this doesn't seem practical at all.
> 
> What I meant is that kernels with N congestion controls, almost all traffic
> uses the default So that path can be optimized. The example I gave would
> have all the others doing the same indirect call.
> 

I do not understand. What is default_tcp_ops anyway ?

How changes to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control will impact this ?