netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 4/4] tcp: defer regular ACK while processing socket backlog

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: <20230907110015.75fdcc5c@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:00:15 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, Soheil
 Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
 Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 4/4] tcp: defer regular ACK while processing
 socket backlog

On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 19:16:01 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Is it okay if I asked why quickack?
> > Is it related to delay-based CC?  
> 
> Note the patch is also helping the 'regular' mode, without "quickack 1" .
> 
> This is CC related in any way, but some TCP tx zerocopy workload, sending
> one chunk at a time, waiting for the TCP tx zerocopy completion in
> order to proceed for the next chunk,
> because the 'next chunk'  is re-using the memory.
> 
> The receiver application is not sending back a message (otherwise the
> 'delayed ack' would be piggybacked in the reply),
> and it also does not know what size of the message was expected (so no
> SO_RCVLOWAT or anything could be attempted)
> 
> For this kind of workload, it is crucial the last ACK is not delayed, at all.

Interesting. Some folks at Meta were recently looking into parsing RPCs
in the kernel to avoid unnecessary wakeups. Poor man's KCM using BPF
sockmaps. Passing message size hints from the sender would solve so
many problems..

In any case, I don't mean to question the patch :)