All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kgraul@linux.ibm.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, matthieu.baerts@tessares.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/3] net/smc: Limits backlog connections
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 12:37:17 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfTEfWBSCsxK0zyF@TonyMac-Alibaba> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e22553bd881bcc3b455bad9d77b392ca3ced5c6e.1643380219.git.alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 10:44:37PM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
> 
> Current implementation does not handling backlog semantics, one
> potential risk is that server will be flooded by infinite amount
> connections, even if client was SMC-incapable.
> 
> This patch works to put a limit on backlog connections, referring to the
> TCP implementation, we divides SMC connections into two categories:
> 
> 1. Half SMC connection, which includes all TCP established while SMC not
> connections.
> 
> 2. Full SMC connection, which includes all SMC established connections.
> 
> For half SMC connection, since all half SMC connections starts with TCP
> established, we can achieve our goal by put a limit before TCP
> established. Refer to the implementation of TCP, this limits will based
> on not only the half SMC connections but also the full connections,
> which is also a constraint on full SMC connections.
> 
> For full SMC connections, although we know exactly where it starts, it's
> quite hard to put a limit before it. The easiest way is to block wait
> before receive SMC confirm CLC message, while it's under protection by
> smc_server_lgr_pending, a global lock, which leads this limit to the
> entire host instead of a single listen socket. Another way is to drop
> the full connections, but considering the cast of SMC connections, we
> prefer to keep full SMC connections.
> 
> Even so, the limits of full SMC connections still exists, see commits
> about half SMC connection below.
> 
> After this patch, the limits of backend connection shows like:
> 
> For SMC:
> 
> 1. Client with SMC-capability can makes 2 * backlog full SMC connections
>    or 1 * backlog half SMC connections and 1 * backlog full SMC
>    connections at most.
> 
> 2. Client without SMC-capability can only makes 1 * backlog half TCP
>    connections and 1 * backlog full TCP connections.
> 
> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> changelog:
> v2: fix compile warning
> ---
>  net/smc/af_smc.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  net/smc/smc.h    |  4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index 1b40304..66a0e64 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -73,6 +73,34 @@ static void smc_set_keepalive(struct sock *sk, int val)
>  	smc->clcsock->sk->sk_prot->keepalive(smc->clcsock->sk, val);
>  }
>  
> +static struct sock *smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock(const struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> +					  struct request_sock *req,
> +					  struct dst_entry *dst,
> +					  struct request_sock *req_unhash,
> +					  bool *own_req)
> +{
> +	struct smc_sock *smc;
> +
> +	smc = (struct smc_sock *)((uintptr_t)sk->sk_user_data & ~SK_USER_DATA_NOCOPY);
> +
> +	if (READ_ONCE(sk->sk_ack_backlog) + atomic_read(&smc->smc_pendings) >
> +				sk->sk_max_ack_backlog)
> +		goto drop;
> +
> +	if (sk_acceptq_is_full(&smc->sk)) {
> +		NET_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), LINUX_MIB_LISTENOVERFLOWS);
> +		goto drop;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* passthrough to origin syn recv sock fct */
> +	return smc->ori_af_ops->syn_recv_sock(sk, skb, req, dst, req_unhash, own_req);

I am wondering if there would introduce more overhead, compared with
original implement?

> +
> +drop:
> +	dst_release(dst);
> +	tcp_listendrop(sk);
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
>  static struct smc_hashinfo smc_v4_hashinfo = {
>  	.lock = __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(smc_v4_hashinfo.lock),
>  };
> @@ -1491,6 +1519,9 @@ static void smc_listen_out(struct smc_sock *new_smc)
>  	struct smc_sock *lsmc = new_smc->listen_smc;
>  	struct sock *newsmcsk = &new_smc->sk;
>  
> +	if (tcp_sk(new_smc->clcsock->sk)->syn_smc)
> +		atomic_dec(&lsmc->smc_pendings);
> +
>  	if (lsmc->sk.sk_state == SMC_LISTEN) {
>  		lock_sock_nested(&lsmc->sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>  		smc_accept_enqueue(&lsmc->sk, newsmcsk);
> @@ -2096,6 +2127,9 @@ static void smc_tcp_listen_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  		if (!new_smc)
>  			continue;
>  
> +		if (tcp_sk(new_smc->clcsock->sk)->syn_smc)
> +			atomic_inc(&lsmc->smc_pendings);
> +
>  		new_smc->listen_smc = lsmc;
>  		new_smc->use_fallback = lsmc->use_fallback;
>  		new_smc->fallback_rsn = lsmc->fallback_rsn;
> @@ -2163,6 +2197,15 @@ static int smc_listen(struct socket *sock, int backlog)
>  	smc->clcsock->sk->sk_data_ready = smc_clcsock_data_ready;
>  	smc->clcsock->sk->sk_user_data =
>  		(void *)((uintptr_t)smc | SK_USER_DATA_NOCOPY);
> +
> +	/* save origin ops */
> +	smc->ori_af_ops = inet_csk(smc->clcsock->sk)->icsk_af_ops;
> +
> +	smc->af_ops = *smc->ori_af_ops;
> +	smc->af_ops.syn_recv_sock = smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock;
> +
> +	inet_csk(smc->clcsock->sk)->icsk_af_ops = &smc->af_ops;

Consider to save syn_recv_sock this field only? There seems no need to
save this ops all.

Thank you,
Tony Lu

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-29  4:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-28 14:44 [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] net/smc: Optimizing performance in D. Wythe
2022-01-28 14:44 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] net/smc: Make smc_tcp_listen_work() independent D. Wythe
2022-01-31 12:45   ` Karsten Graul
2022-02-02 12:53     ` D. Wythe
2022-01-28 14:44 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 2/3] net/smc: Limits backlog connections D. Wythe
2022-01-29  4:37   ` Tony Lu [this message]
2022-02-02 14:01     ` D. Wythe
2022-01-28 14:44 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 3/3] net/smc: Fallback when handshake workqueue congested D. Wythe
2022-01-29  4:33   ` Tony Lu
2022-02-02 14:04     ` D. Wythe
2022-02-07  7:13     ` D. Wythe
2022-02-07  9:37       ` Tony Lu
2022-01-31 12:46 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] net/smc: Optimizing performance in Karsten Graul
2022-02-02 13:00   ` D. Wythe

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=YfTEfWBSCsxK0zyF@TonyMac-Alibaba \
    --to=tonylu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kgraul@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthieu.baerts@tessares.net \
    --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.