All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	"'netdev@vger.kernel.org'" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "'davem@davemloft.net'" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: sctp: Add partial support for MSG_MORE on SCTP
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:24:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53C547AD.3090906@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17273C31@AcuExch.aculab.com>

On 07/15/2014 10:33 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Vlad Yasevich 
>> On 07/14/2014 12:27 PM, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Vlad Yasevich
>>> ...
>>>>> +	/* Setting MSG_MORE currently has the same effect as enabling Nagle.
>>>>> +	 * This means that the user can't force bundling of the first two data
>>>>> +	 * chunks.  It does mean that all the data chunks will be sent
>>>>> +	 * without an extra timer.
>>>>> +	 * It is enough to save the last value since any data sent with
>>>>> +	 * MSG_MORE clear will already have been sent (subject to flow control).
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE)
>>>>> +		sp->tx_delay |= SCTP_F_TX_MSG_MORE;
>>>>> +	else
>>>>> +		sp->tx_delay &= ~SCTP_F_TX_MSG_MORE;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> This is ok for 1-1 sockets, but it doesn't really work for 1-many sockets.  If one of
>>>> the associations uses MSG_MORE while another does not, we'll see some interesting
>>>> side-effects on the wire.
>>>
> ...
>>> I don't think this is a problem.
>>
>> Not, it is not a _problem_, but it does make MSG_MORE rather useless
>> in some situations.  Waiting for an ACK across low-latency links
>> is rare, but in a high-latency scenarios where you want to utilize the
>> bandwidth better with bundling, you may not see the gains you expect.
>>
>> Since MSG_MORE is association, it should be handled as such and an
>> a change on one association should not effect the others.
> 
> I think the comments already say that it is only a partial implementation.
> (If you send 2 chunks on an idle connection, they get sent separately.)
> Perhaps I'll add a note about possibly 'odd' effects for 1-many sockets
> with multi-threaded apps.
> 
> It helps a lot for my M3UA traffic.
> I can get the same effect on an old kernel by repeatedly changing SCTP_NODELAY,
> but that does rather rely on the way Nagle is implemented.

You can fix this by having an sp->tx_delay value and a assoc->tx_delay value
and simple check (sp->tx_delay | assoc->tx_delay).  MSG_MORE would only set
the assoc->tx_delay while SCTP_NODELAY would effect the socket.

This way, when one association uses MSG_MORE, it will not effect other associations
on the same socket that don't use it.

-vlad

> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	"'netdev@vger.kernel.org'" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "'davem@davemloft.net'" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: sctp: Add partial support for MSG_MORE on SCTP
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:24:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53C547AD.3090906@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17273C31@AcuExch.aculab.com>

On 07/15/2014 10:33 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Vlad Yasevich 
>> On 07/14/2014 12:27 PM, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Vlad Yasevich
>>> ...
>>>>> +	/* Setting MSG_MORE currently has the same effect as enabling Nagle.
>>>>> +	 * This means that the user can't force bundling of the first two data
>>>>> +	 * chunks.  It does mean that all the data chunks will be sent
>>>>> +	 * without an extra timer.
>>>>> +	 * It is enough to save the last value since any data sent with
>>>>> +	 * MSG_MORE clear will already have been sent (subject to flow control).
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE)
>>>>> +		sp->tx_delay |= SCTP_F_TX_MSG_MORE;
>>>>> +	else
>>>>> +		sp->tx_delay &= ~SCTP_F_TX_MSG_MORE;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> This is ok for 1-1 sockets, but it doesn't really work for 1-many sockets.  If one of
>>>> the associations uses MSG_MORE while another does not, we'll see some interesting
>>>> side-effects on the wire.
>>>
> ...
>>> I don't think this is a problem.
>>
>> Not, it is not a _problem_, but it does make MSG_MORE rather useless
>> in some situations.  Waiting for an ACK across low-latency links
>> is rare, but in a high-latency scenarios where you want to utilize the
>> bandwidth better with bundling, you may not see the gains you expect.
>>
>> Since MSG_MORE is association, it should be handled as such and an
>> a change on one association should not effect the others.
> 
> I think the comments already say that it is only a partial implementation.
> (If you send 2 chunks on an idle connection, they get sent separately.)
> Perhaps I'll add a note about possibly 'odd' effects for 1-many sockets
> with multi-threaded apps.
> 
> It helps a lot for my M3UA traffic.
> I can get the same effect on an old kernel by repeatedly changing SCTP_NODELAY,
> but that does rather rely on the way Nagle is implemented.

You can fix this by having an sp->tx_delay value and a assoc->tx_delay value
and simple check (sp->tx_delay | assoc->tx_delay).  MSG_MORE would only set
the assoc->tx_delay while SCTP_NODELAY would effect the socket.

This way, when one association uses MSG_MORE, it will not effect other associations
on the same socket that don't use it.

-vlad

> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-15 15:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-09  8:29 [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: sctp: Add partial support for MSG_MORE on SCTP David Laight
2014-07-09  8:29 ` David Laight
2014-07-11 20:11 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-07-11 20:11   ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-07-14 16:27   ` David Laight
2014-07-14 19:15     ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-07-14 19:15       ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-07-15 14:33       ` David Laight
2014-07-15 15:24         ` Vlad Yasevich [this message]
2014-07-15 15:24           ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-07-15 16:13           ` David Laight

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53C547AD.3090906@gmail.com \
    --to=vyasevich@gmail.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.