Message-ID: <CAL+tcoCCznKP8Jb8poy90+9azjZ+1467oF8KGeT5vQwFQZ_trg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:56:07 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: dsahern@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	davem@...emloft.net, ncardwell@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: remove 64 KByte limit for initial
 tp->rcv_wnd value

Hello Eric,

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 8:36 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Eric,
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:51 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 4:50 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > >
> > > In 2018 commit a337531b942b ("tcp: up initial rmem to 128KB and SYN rwin
> > > to around 64KB") limited the initial value of tp->rcv_wnd to 65535, most
> > > CDN team would not benefit from this change because they cannot have a
> > > large window to receive a big packet, which will be slowed down especially
> > > in long RTT.
> > >
> > > According to RFC 7323, it says:
> > >   "The maximum receive window, and therefore the scale factor, is
> > >    determined by the maximum receive buffer space."
> >
> > This seems not relevant ?  wscale factor is not changed in this patch ?
> > tp->rcv_wnd is also not the maximum receive window.
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I can remove this part. I was trying to claim I do not break RFC.
>
> >
> > >
> > > So we can get rid of this 64k limitation and let the window be tunable if
> > > the user wants to do it within the control of buffer space. Then many
> > > companies, I believe, can have the same behaviour as old days.
> >
> > Not sure this has ever worked, see below.
> >
> > Also, the "many companies ..." mention has nothing to do in a changelog.
>
> Oh, I just copied/translated from my initial studies of this rcv_wnd
> by reading many papers something like this.
>
> I can also remove this sentence.
>
> >
> >
> > > Besides,
> > > there are many papers conducting various interesting experiments which
> > > have something to do with this window and show good outputs in some cases,
> > > say, paper [1] in Yahoo! CDN.
> >
> > I think this changelog is trying hard to sell something, but in
> > reality TCP 3WHS nature
> > makes your claims wrong.
> >
> > Instead, you should clearly document that this problem can _not_ be
> > solved for both
> > active _and_ passive connections.
> >
> > In the first RTT, a client (active connection) can not send more than
> > 64KB, if TCP specs
> > are properly applied.
>
> Having a large rcv_wnd if the user can tweak this knob can help
> transfer data more rapidly. I'm not referring to the first RTT.
>
> >
> > >
> > > To avoid future confusion, current change doesn't affect the initial
> > > receive window on the wire in a SYN or SYN+ACK packet which are set within
> > > 65535 bytes according to RFC 7323 also due to the limit in
> > > __tcp_transmit_skb():
> > >
> > >     th->window      = htons(min(tp->rcv_wnd, 65535U));
> > >
> > > In one word, __tcp_transmit_skb() already ensures that constraint is
> > > respected, no matter how large tp->rcv_wnd is.
> > >
> > > Let me provide one example if with or without the patch:
> > > Before:
> > > client   --- SYN: rwindow=65535 ---> server
> > > client   <--- SYN+ACK: rwindow=65535 ----  server
> > > client   --- ACK: rwindow=65536 ---> server
> > > Note: for the last ACK, the calculation is 512 << 7.
> > >
> > > After:
> > > client   --- SYN: rwindow=65535 ---> server
> > > client   <--- SYN+ACK: rwindow=65535 ----  server
> > > client   --- ACK: rwindow=175232 ---> server
> > > Note: I use the following command to make it work:
> > > ip route change default via [ip] dev eth0 metric 100 initrwnd 120
> > > For the last ACK, the calculation is 1369 << 7.
> > >
> > > We can pay attention to the last ACK in 3-way shakehand and notice that
> > > with the patch applied the window can reach more than 64 KByte.
> >
> > You carefully avoided mentioning the asymmetry.
> > I do not think this is needed in the changelog, because this is adding
> > confusion.
>
> What kind of case I've met in production is only about whether we're
> capable of sending more data at the same time at the very beginning,
> so I care much more about the sending process right now.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [1]: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2011/docs/p569.pdf
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240517085031.18896-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> > > 1. revise the title and body messages (Neal)
> > > ---
> > >  net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > > index 95caf8aaa8be..95618d0e78e4 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > > @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(const struct sock *sk, int __space, __u32 mss,
> > >         if (READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_workaround_signed_windows))
> > >                 (*rcv_wnd) = min(space, MAX_TCP_WINDOW);
> > >         else
> > > -               (*rcv_wnd) = min_t(u32, space, U16_MAX);
> > > +               (*rcv_wnd) = space;
> >
> > This is probably breaking some  packetdrill tests, but your change
> > might [1] be good,
>
> I'll do some packetdrill tests and get back some information soon.

I'm done with the packetdrill tests[1]. Here are two tests failed
after comparing with/without this patch:
1) ./packetdrill/run_all.py -S -v -L -l tcp/ioctl/ioctl-siocinq-fin.pkt
2) ./packetdrill/run_all.py -S -v -L -l
tcp/fastopen/server/client-ack-dropped-then-recovery-ms-timestamps.pkt

For the first one, it shows:
"FAIL [/data/home/kernelxing/source_code/packetdrill/gtests/net/tcp/ioctl/ioctl-siocinq-fin.pkt
(ipv6)]
stdout:
stderr:
ioctl-siocinq-fin.pkt:28: error handling packet: timing error:
expected outbound packet at 0.302321 sec but happened at 0.342759 sec;
tolerance 0.004000 sec
script packet:  0.302321 . 1:1(0) ack 2002
actual packet:  0.342759 . 1:1(0) ack 2002 win 65535"

For the second one, it shows:
"client-ack-dropped-then-recovery-ms-timestamps.pkt:33: error handling
packet: live packet field tcp_window: expected: 256 (0x100) vs actual:
532 (0x214)
script packet:  0.012251 P. 1:5001(5000) ack 1001 win 256 <nop,nop,TS
val 2010 ecr 1000>
actual packet:  0.012242 P. 1:5001(5000) ack 1001 win 532 <nop,nop,TS
val 2010 ecr 1000>
Ran    3 tests:    0 passing,    3 failing,    0 timed out (0.91 sec):
tcp/fastopen/server/client-ack-dropped-then-recovery-ms-timestamps.pkt"

The reason is unexpected window size. Since I removed the limit of
64KB, It is expected from my view.

[1]: https://github.com/google/packetdrill
Running: ./packetdrill/run_all.py -S -v -L -l tcp/

I wonder if you mind this change which might be unpredictable, how
about this one:
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
index 95caf8aaa8be..3bf7d9fd2d6b 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
@@ -231,11 +231,13 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(const struct sock
*sk, int __space, __u32 mss,
         */
        if (READ_ONCE(sock_net(sk)->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_workaround_signed_windows))
                (*rcv_wnd) = min(space, MAX_TCP_WINDOW);
-       else
-               (*rcv_wnd) = min_t(u32, space, U16_MAX);

-       if (init_rcv_wnd)
+       if (init_rcv_wnd) {
+               *rcv_wnd = space;
                *rcv_wnd = min(*rcv_wnd, init_rcv_wnd * mss);
+       } else {
+               *rcv_wnd = min_t(u32, space, U16_MAX);
+       }

        *rcv_wscale = 0;
        if (wscale_ok) {
?

It affects/changes the TCP stack only when the user tries to use 'ip
route' to set initrwnd.

Thanks,
Jason

>
> > especially because it allows DRS behavior to be consistent for large
> > MTU (eg MTU 9000) and bigger tcp_rmem[1],
> > even without playing with initrwnd attribute.
> >
> > "ss -temoi " would display after connection setup  rcv_space:89600
> > instead of a capped value.
> >
> > [1] This is hard to say, DRS is full of surprises.
>
> To avoid confusion, I will remove this link and relevant statements.
>
> Here are my opinions in conclusion:
> 1) this change doesn't break the law, I mean, various RFCs.
> 2) this change allows us to have the same behaviour as 2018 in this case.
> 3) this change does some good things to certain cases, especially for
> the CDN team.
>
> I'll refine the changelog as far as I can, hoping it will not confuse
> the readers.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists