| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANn89iL97hLAyHx9ee1VKTnLEgJeEVPrf_8-wf0BEBKAPQitPA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:51:30 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> Cc: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, linux-imx@....com, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...rgebyte.com>, Michael Heimpold <mhei@...mpold.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> Subject: Re: iperf performance regression since Linux 5.18 On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:40 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:37 AM Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Am 09.10.23 um 21:19 schrieb Neal Cardwell: > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:11 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 8:58 PM Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net> wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> we recently switched on our ARM NXP i.MX6ULL based embedded device > > >>> (Tarragon Master [1]) from an older kernel version to Linux 6.1. After > > >>> that we noticed a measurable performance regression on the Ethernet > > >>> interface (driver: fec, 100 Mbit link) while running iperf client on the > > >>> device: > > >>> > > >>> BAD > > >>> > > >>> # iperf -t 10 -i 1 -c 192.168.1.129 > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> Client connecting to 192.168.1.129, TCP port 5001 > > >>> TCP window size: 96.2 KByte (default) > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> [ 3] local 192.168.1.12 port 56022 connected with 192.168.1.129 port 5001 > > >>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > > >>> [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 9.88 MBytes 82.8 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 9.62 MBytes 80.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 9.75 MBytes 81.8 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 9.62 MBytes 80.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 9.62 MBytes 80.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 9.62 MBytes 80.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 9.50 MBytes 79.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 9.75 MBytes 81.8 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 9.62 MBytes 80.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 9.0-10.0 sec 9.50 MBytes 79.7 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 96.5 MBytes 80.9 Mbits/sec > > >>> > > >>> GOOD > > >>> > > >>> # iperf -t 10 -i 1 -c 192.168.1.129 > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> Client connecting to 192.168.1.129, TCP port 5001 > > >>> TCP window size: 96.2 KByte (default) > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> [ 3] local 192.168.1.12 port 54898 connected with 192.168.1.129 port 5001 > > >>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > > >>> [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 11.0 MBytes 92.3 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 10.8 MBytes 90.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 11.0 MBytes 92.3 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 10.8 MBytes 90.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 9.0-10.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.2 Mbits/sec > > >>> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 109 MBytes 91.4 Mbits/sec > > >>> > > >>> We were able to bisect this down to this commit: > > >>> > > >>> first bad commit: [65466904b015f6eeb9225b51aeb29b01a1d4b59c] tcp: adjust > > >>> TSO packet sizes based on min_rtt > > >>> > > >>> Disabling this new setting via: > > >>> > > >>> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_tso_rtt_log > > >>> > > >>> confirm that this was the cause of the performance regression. > > >>> > > >>> Is it expected that the new default setting has such a performance impact? > > > Indeed, thanks for the report. > > > > > > In addition to the "ss" output Eric mentioned, could you please grab > > > "nstat" output, which should allow us to calculate the average TSO/GSO > > > and LRO/GRO burst sizes, which is the key thing tuned with the > > > tcp_tso_rtt_log knob. > > > > > > So it would be great to have the following from both data sender and > > > data receiver, for both the good case and bad case, if you could start > > > these before your test and kill them after the test stops: > > > > > > (while true; do date; ss -tenmoi; sleep 1; done) > /root/ss.txt & > > > nstat -n; (while true; do date; nstat; sleep 1; done) > /root/nstat.txt > > i upload everything here: > > https://github.com/lategoodbye/tcp_tso_rtt_log_regress > > > > The server part is a Ubuntu installation connected to the internet. At > > first i logged the good case, then i continued with the bad case. > > Accidentally i delete a log file of bad case, so i repeated the whole > > bad case again. So the uploaded bad case files are from the third run. > > Thanks for the detailed data! > > Here are some notes from looking at this data: > > + bad client: avg TSO burst size is roughly: > https://github.com/lategoodbye/tcp_tso_rtt_log_regress/blob/main/nstat_client_bad.log > IpOutRequests 308 44.7 > IpExtOutOctets 10050656 1403181.0 > est bytes per TSO burst: 10050656 / 308 = 32632 > est packets per TSO burst: 32632 / 1448 ~= 22.5 > > + good client: avg TSO burst size is roughly: > https://github.com/lategoodbye/tcp_tso_rtt_log_regress/blob/main/nstat_client_good.log > IpOutRequests 529 62.0 > IpExtOutOctets 11502992 1288711.5 > est bytes per TSO burst: 11502992 / 529 ~= 21745 > est packets per TSO burst: 21745 / 1448 ~= 15.0 > > + bad client ss data: > https://github.com/lategoodbye/tcp_tso_rtt_log_regress/blob/main/ss_client_bad.log > State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:PortProcess > ESTAB 0 236024 192.168.1.12:39228 192.168.1.129:5001 > timer:(on,030ms,0) ino:25876 sk:414f52af rto:0.21 cwnd:68 ssthresh:20 > reordering:0 > Mbits/sec allowed by cwnd: 68 * 1448 * 8 / .0018 / 1000000.0 ~= 437.6 > > + good client ss data: > https://github.com/lategoodbye/tcp_tso_rtt_log_regress/blob/main/ss_client_good.log > Fri Oct 13 15:04:36 CEST 2023 > State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:PortProcess > ESTAB 0 425712 192.168.1.12:33284 192.168.1.129:5001 > timer:(on,020ms,0) ino:20654 sk:414f52af rto:0.21 cwnd:106 ssthresh:20 > reordering:0 > Mbits/sec allowed by cwnd: 106 * 1448 * 8 / .0028 / 1000000.0 = 438.5 > > So it seems indeed like cwnd is not the limiting factor, and instead > there is something about the larger TSO/GSO bursts (roughly 22.5 > packets per burst on average) in the "bad" case that is causing > problems, and preventing the sender from keeping the pipe fully > utilized. > > So perhaps the details of the tcp_tso_should_defer() logic are hurting > performance? > > The default value of tcp_tso_win_divisor is 3, and in the bad case the > cwnd / tcp_tso_win_divisor = 68 / 3 = 22.7 packets, which is > suspiciously close to the average TSO burst size of 22.5. So my guess > is that the tcp_tso_win_divisor of 3 is the dominant factor here, and > perhaps if we raise it to 5, then 68/5 ~= 13.60 will approximate the > TSO burst size in the "good" case, and fully utilize the pipe. So it > seems worth an experiment, to see what we can learn. > > To test that theory, could you please try running the following as > root on the data sender machine, and then re-running the "bad" test > with tcp_tso_rtt_log at the default value of 9? > > sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_tso_win_divisor=5 > > Thanks! > neal Hmm, we receive ~3200 acks per second, I am not sure the tcp_tso_should_defer() logic would hurt ? Also the ss binary on the client seems very old, or its output has been mangled perhaps ? State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:PortProcess ESTAB 0 492320 192.168.1.12:33284 192.168.1.129:5001 timer:(on,030ms,0) ino:20654 sk:414f52af rto:0.21 cwnd:106 ssthresh:20 reordering:0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists