Re: [IPOIB] Excessive TX packet drops due to IPOIB_MAX_PATH_REC_QUEUE

Erez Shitrit
2016-08-01T08:56:26Z

The GID (9000:0:2800:0:bc00:7500:6e:d8a4) is not regular, not from
local subnet prefix.
why is that?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Nikolay Borisov <kernel-6AxghH7DbtA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/01/2016 11:01 AM, Erez Shitrit wrote:
>> Hi Nikolay,
>>
>> IPoIB is a special driver because it plays in 2 "courts", in one hand
>> it is a network driver and in the other hand it is IB driver, this is
>> the reason for what you are seeing. (be carefull more details are
>> coming ..)
>>
>> After ARP reply the kernel which threats ipoib driver as network
>> driver (like ethernet, and doesn't aware of the IB aspect of the ipoib
>> driver)
>> the kernel thinks that now after it has the layer 2 address (from ARP)
>> it can send the packets to the destination, it doesn't aware of the IB
>> aspect which needs the AV (by Path Record) in order to get the right
>> destination, ipoib tries to do best effort and while it asks the SM
>> for the PathRecord it keeps theses packets (skb's) from the kernel in
>> the neigh structure, the number of packets that are kept is 3, (3 is a
>> good number, right after 2 .. and for almost all of the topologies we
>> will not get more than 1 or 2 drops)
>>
>> Now, for your case, i think you have other problem, the connectivity
>> with the SM is bad, or the destination is no longer exists.
>> check that via the saquery tool (saquery PR <> <>)
>
> Thanks a lot for explaining this!
>
> Actually right after I posted that email further investigation revealed
> that the infiniband is indeed somehow confused. So when I initiate a
> connection from machine A, which is connected to machine B via
> infiniband (and ipoib ipv6 connectivity) everything works as expected.
> However, if I do the same sequence but instead of connecting to machine
> B I connected to a container, hosted on machine B and accessible via a
> veth address I see the following bogus path records:
>
> GID: 9000:0:2800:0:bc00:7500:6e:d8a4
> complete: no
>
> Clearly, this is a wrong address, while the bottom part is a valid GUID
> of the infiniband port of machine A, the 9000:0:2800 part isn't. Here is
> how the the actual path record for machine A (from the point of view of
> Machine B) looks like:
>
> GID: fe80:0:0:0:11:7500:6e:d8a4
> complete: yes
> DLID: 0x004f
> SL: 0
> rate: 40.0 Gb/sec
>
>
> Naturally if I do a saquery -p for 9000:0:2800:0:bc00:7500:6e:d8a4 I get
> nothing, while for the second address it works. Further tracing revealed
> that in ipoib_start_xmit on machine B the ipoib_cb->hwaddr is set to
> 9000:0:2800:0:bc00:7500:6e:d8a4 which is passed as an argument to
> ipoib_neigh_get and this function returns NULL. This causes
> neigh_add_path to be called to add a path but results in -EINVAL. Here
> are the respective debug messages:
>
> ib0: Start path record lookup for 9000:0000:2800:0000:bc00:7500:006e:d8a4
>
> ib0: PathRec status -22 for GID 9000:0000:2800:0000:bc00:7500:006e:d8a4
> ib0: neigh free for 0002f3 9000:0000:2800:0000:bc00:7500:006e:d8a4
>
> And this is what is casuing the packet drops, since this neighbour is
> considered dead (because it doesn't exist). For me this moves the
> problem on a slightly different abstraction, because now it seems the
> veth pair is somehow confusing the ipoib driver.
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks, Erez
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Nikolay Borisov <kernel-6AxghH7DbtA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> While investigating excessive (> 50%) packet drops on an ipoib
>>> interface as reported by ifconfig :
>>>
>>> TX packets:16565 errors:1 dropped:9058 overruns:0 carrier:0
>>>
>>> I discovered that this is happening due to the following check
>>> in ipoib_start_xmit failing:
>>>
>>> if (skb_queue_len(&neigh->queue) < IPOIB_MAX_PATH_REC_QUEUE) {
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
>>> __skb_queue_tail(&neigh->queue, skb);
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
>>> } else {
>>> ++dev->stats.tx_dropped;
>>> dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
>>> }
>>>
>>> With the following stacktrace:
>>>
>>> [1629744.927799] [<ffffffffa048e6a1>] ipoib_start_xmit+0x651/0x6c0 [ib_ipoib]
>>> [1629744.927804] [<ffffffff8154ecf6>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x266/0x410
>>> [1629744.927807] [<ffffffff81571b1b>] sch_direct_xmit+0xdb/0x210
>>> [1629744.927808] [<ffffffff8154f22a>] __dev_queue_xmit+0x24a/0x580
>>> [1629744.927810] [<ffffffff8154f570>] dev_queue_xmit+0x10/0x20
>>> [1629744.927813] [<ffffffff81557cf8>] neigh_resolve_output+0x118/0x1c0
>>> [1629744.927828] [<ffffffffa0003c7e>] ip6_finish_output2+0x18e/0x490 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927831] [<ffffffffa03b7374>] ? ipv6_confirm+0xc4/0x130 [nf_conntrack_ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927837] [<ffffffffa00052a6>] ip6_finish_output+0xa6/0x100 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927843] [<ffffffffa0005344>] ip6_output+0x44/0xe0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927850] [<ffffffffa0005200>] ? ip6_fragment+0x9b0/0x9b0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927858] [<ffffffffa000447c>] ip6_forward+0x4fc/0x8d0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927867] [<ffffffffa00142ad>] ? ip6_route_input+0xfd/0x130 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927872] [<ffffffffa0001b70>] ? dst_output+0x20/0x20 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927877] [<ffffffffa0005be7>] ip6_rcv_finish+0x57/0xa0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927882] [<ffffffffa0006374>] ipv6_rcv+0x314/0x4e0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927887] [<ffffffffa0005b90>] ? ip6_make_skb+0x1b0/0x1b0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927890] [<ffffffff8154c66b>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x2cb/0xa30
>>> [1629744.927893] [<ffffffff8108310c>] ? __enqueue_entity+0x6c/0x70
>>> [1629744.927894] [<ffffffff8154cde6>] __netif_receive_skb+0x16/0x70
>>> [1629744.927896] [<ffffffff8154dc63>] process_backlog+0xb3/0x160
>>> [1629744.927898] [<ffffffff8154d36c>] net_rx_action+0x1ec/0x330
>>> [1629744.927900] [<ffffffff810821e1>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xa1/0xb0
>>> [1629744.927902] [<ffffffff81057337>] __do_softirq+0x147/0x310
>>> [1629744.927907] [<ffffffffa0003c80>] ? ip6_finish_output2+0x190/0x490 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927909] [<ffffffff8161618c>] do_softirq_own_stack+0x1c/0x30
>>> [1629744.927910] <EOI> [<ffffffff810567bb>] do_softirq.part.17+0x3b/0x40
>>> [1629744.927913] [<ffffffff81056876>] __local_bh_enable_ip+0xb6/0xc0
>>> [1629744.927918] [<ffffffffa0003c91>] ip6_finish_output2+0x1a1/0x490 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927920] [<ffffffffa03b7374>] ? ipv6_confirm+0xc4/0x130 [nf_conntrack_ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927925] [<ffffffffa00052a6>] ip6_finish_output+0xa6/0x100 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927930] [<ffffffffa0005344>] ip6_output+0x44/0xe0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927935] [<ffffffffa0005200>] ? ip6_fragment+0x9b0/0x9b0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927939] [<ffffffffa0002e1f>] ip6_xmit+0x23f/0x4f0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927944] [<ffffffffa0001b50>] ? ac6_proc_exit+0x20/0x20 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927952] [<ffffffffa0033ce5>] inet6_csk_xmit+0x85/0xd0 [ipv6]
>>> [1629744.927955] [<ffffffff815aa56d>] tcp_transmit_skb+0x53d/0x910
>>> [1629744.927957] [<ffffffff815aab13>] tcp_write_xmit+0x1d3/0xe90
>>> [1629744.927959] [<ffffffff815aba31>] __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x31/0xa0
>>> [1629744.927961] [<ffffffff8159a19f>] tcp_push+0xef/0x120
>>> [1629744.927963] [<ffffffff8159e219>] tcp_sendmsg+0x6c9/0xac0
>>> [1629744.927965] [<ffffffff815c84d3>] inet_sendmsg+0x73/0xb0
>>> [1629744.927967] [<ffffffff81531728>] sock_sendmsg+0x38/0x50
>>> [1629744.927969] [<ffffffff815317bb>] sock_write_iter+0x7b/0xd0
>>> [1629744.927972] [<ffffffff811988ba>] __vfs_write+0xaa/0xe0
>>> [1629744.927974] [<ffffffff81198f29>] vfs_write+0xa9/0x190
>>> [1629744.927975] [<ffffffff81198e63>] ? vfs_read+0x113/0x130
>>> [1629744.927977] [<ffffffff81199c16>] SyS_write+0x46/0xa0
>>> [1629744.927979] [<ffffffff8161465b>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x16/0x6e
>>> [1629744.927988] ---[ end trace 08584e4165caf3df ]---
>>>
>>>
>>> IPOIB_MAX_PATH_REC_QUEUE is set to 3. If I'm reading the code correctly
>>> if there are more than 3 outstanding packets for a neighbour this would
>>> cause the code to drop the packets. Is this correct? Also I tried bumping
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>> IPOIB_MAX_PATH_REC_QUEUE to 150 to see what will happen and this instead
>>
>> it is a bad idea to move it to 150 ...
>>
>>> moved the dropping to occur in ipoib_neigh_dtor:
>>>
>>> [1629558.306405] [<ffffffffa04788ec>] ipoib_neigh_dtor+0x9c/0x130 [ib_ipoib]
>>> [1629558.306407] [<ffffffffa0478999>] ipoib_neigh_reclaim+0x19/0x20 [ib_ipoib]
>>> [1629558.306411] [<ffffffff810ad0fb>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x21b/0x620
>>> [1629558.306413] [<ffffffff81057337>] __do_softirq+0x147/0x310
>>>
>>> Since you've taken part in the development of the said code I'd like
>>> to ask what's the purpose of the IPOIB_MAX_PATH_REC_QUEUE limit and why
>>> do we drop packets if there are more than this many outstanding packets,
>>> since having 50% packet drops is a very large amount of drops?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nikolay
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html