[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0419d5f8f551e481603b34f162299cc9961694fc.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:31:59 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, neilb@...e.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ip: re-introduce fragments cache worker
On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 08:58 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:48 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 05:50 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On 07/09/2018 04:39 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alternatively, you could try to patch fq_codel to drop all frags of one UDP datagram
> > > > instead of few of them.
> > >
> > > A first step would be to make sure fq_codel_hash() (using skb_get_hash(skb)) selects
> > > the same bucket for all frags of a datagram :/
> >
> > I gave the above a shot and I have some non upstream ready but somewhat
> > working code. Anyway it has some issues I'm unable to solve:
> > * it's very invasive for fq_codel, because I need to parse each packet
> > looking for the fragment id
> > * the parsing overhead can't be easily avoided for non fragments
>
> Have you tried using ip_defrag(net, skb, IP_DEFRAG_QDISC) from fq_codel ?
> (adding a new value in ip_defrag_users enum)
>
> if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP) {
> if (ip_is_fragment(ip_hdr(skb))) {
> if ((ip_defrag(net, skb, IP_DEFRAG_QDISC))
> return 0;
> ...
Thank you for the feedback. I must admit this quite in the opposite
direction of what I have attempted so far. I'll try that.
Thanks.
Still for ipv6 it will require a litte more work inside fq_codel.
> > I tried also something hopefully along the same lines of your other
> > suggestion (drop eariler the fragment queues when above low threshold):
> > when allocating a new frag queue and the ipfrag mem is above the low
> > th, another frag queue is selected in a pseudorandom way and dropped.
>
> The problem with any strategy like that, is that forthcoming fragments
> for this frag queue
> will create another frag queue, that will never have a chance to complete.
>
> Some workloads might benefit, others might not.
Yes, of course: is an heuristic, but is cheap code-wise, and it can be
disabled setting low th >= high th, so that the kernel will behave
exactly as it does now, and the kind of workloads we could cope with
will increase without adding new knobs.
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists