Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Fix expected buffersizes and sync logic

Wenjia Zhang
2022-11-28T08:33:04Z

On 28.11.22 05:33, Tony Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25.11.22 08:05, Tony Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 07:15:33AM +0100, Jan Karcher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24/11/2022 15:07, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24.11.22 14:00, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:49:07AM +0100, Jan Karcher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The fixed commit changed the expected behavior of buffersizes
>>>>>>>>>> set by the user using the setsockopt mechanism.
>>>>>>>>>> Before the fixed patch the logic for determining the buffersizes used
>>>>>>>>>> was the following:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> default = net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1]
>>>>> Jan, you explained to me: "the minima is 16Kib. This is enforced in smc_compress_bufsize
>>>>> which would move any value <= 16Kib into bucket 0 - which is 16KiB "
>>>>> net.ipv4.tcp_wmem[1] defaults to 8Kib. So in the default case (unchanged net.ipv4.tcp_wmem[1])
>>>>> the default for the send path is not net.ipv4.tcp_wmem[1]. Should be clarified here.
>>>>
>>>> The default value is still set to the net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1]. This is a
>>>> *very* top level overview about what is happening and *not* a documentation.
>>>> I don't really want to explain the full code flow here.
>>>>
>>>> What we still should do - as Tony aggreed on - is documenting the SMC
>>>> behavior. This is a follow up on my list.
>>>
>>> Hello Jan and Alexandra,
>>>
>>> It looks like the misalignment of information is causing some trouble,
>>> which is introduced by my patch. Maybe we could have an off-maillist and
>>> online meeting to discussion?
>>>
>>> We have some progress updates of scalability, and we are really like the
>>> extension of SMC-D. Also we have some ideas for SMC, in case of
>>> misalignment of information, we'd like to put them on the table and
>>> discuss them earlier. Maybe an online meeting is an efficient way. What
>>> do you think?
>>>
>>> If possible, I would prepared the meetings and topics and send them to
>>> everyone first.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tony Lu
>>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your constructive proposals Tony. Yes, we should have a discussion off-mailinglist
>> about future topics.
>
> I will prepare the discussion off-maillinglist ASAP. The email will be
> sent out when it's ready. And Jan, What about your opinion?
>
> Cheers,
> Tony Lu
>
Hi Tony,

Sorry for the flurry we brought!

It's very nice to know that you got progress on the scalability.

Firstly the off-millinglist is a good idea! Let's know if yor're ready.

About the meetings I would ask for your understanding that I still can
not give any guarantee. But I would let you know ASAP after I talk to
our team.

Best,
Wenjia
>>
>> My remaining concern for this fix is the default values (user does not use setsockopt, nor
>> changes the new sysfs parameters, nor changes tcp defaults):
>>>>>> before 0227f058aa29 ("net/smc: Unbind r/w buffer size from clcsock and make them tunable")
>> send: 16k recv: 64k
>>>>>> after net/smc: Fix expected buffersizes and sync logic (this patch)
>>>>>> send: 16k recv: 128k
>>
>> @Jan, as this is the only patch you want to send to net, please change the default size of
>> the receive buffers back to 64k (I don't care how).
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sockopt = the setsockopt mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> val = the value assigned in default or via setsockopt
>>>>>>>>>> sk_buf = short for sk_{snd|rcv}buf
>>>>>>>>>> real_buf = the real size of the buffer (sk_buf_size in __smc_buf_create)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> exposed | net/core/sock.c | af_smc.c | smc_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | | +------------+ | +-------------------+
>>>>>>>>>> | default |----------------------| sk_buf=val |---| real_buf=sk_buf/2 |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | | +------------+ | +-------------------+
>>>>>>>>>> | | | ^
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | +--------------+ | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | sockopt |---| sk_buf=val*2 |-----------------------|
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | +--------------+ | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fixed patch introduced a dedicated sysctl for smc
>>>>>>>>>> and removed the /2 in smc_core.c resulting in the following flow:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> default = net.smc.{w|r}mem (which defaults to net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1])
>>>>>>>>>> sockopt = the setsockopt mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> val = the value assigned in default or via setsockopt
>>>>>>>>>> sk_buf = short for sk_{snd|rcv}buf
>>>>>>>>>> real_buf = the real size of the buffer (sk_buf_size in __smc_buf_create)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> exposed | net/core/sock.c | af_smc.c | smc_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | | +------------+ | +-----------------+
>>>>>>>>>> | default |----------------------| sk_buf=val |---| real_buf=sk_buf |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | | +------------+ | +-----------------+
>>>>>>>>>> | | | ^
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | +--------------+ | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | sockopt |---| sk_buf=val*2 |-----------------------|
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | +--------------+ | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This would result in double of memory used for existing configurations
>>>>>>>>>> that are using setsockopt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Firstly, thanks for your detailed diagrams :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the original decision to use user-provided values rather than
>>>>>>>>> value/2 to follow the instructions of the socket manual [1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SO_RCVBUF
>>>>>>>>> Sets or gets the maximum socket receive buffer in bytes.
>>>>>>>>> The kernel doubles this value (to allow space for
>>>>>>>>> bookkeeping overhead) when it is set using setsockopt(2),
>>>>>>>>> and this doubled value is returned by getsockopt(2). The
>>>>>>>>> default value is set by the
>>>>>>>>> /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default file, and the maximum
>>>>>>>>> allowed value is set by the /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max
>>>>>>>>> file. The minimum (doubled) value for this option is 256.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/socket.7.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The user of SMC should know that setsockopt() with SO_{RCV|SND}BUF will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I totally agree that an educated user of SMC should know about that behavior
>>>>>>>> if they decide to use it.
>>>>>>>> We do provide our users preload libraries where they can pass preferred
>>>>>>>> buffersizes via arguments and we handle the Sockopts for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> double the values in kernel, and getsockopt() will return the doubled
>>>>>>>>> values. So that they should use half of the values which are passed to
>>>>>>>>> setsockopt(). The original patch tries to make things easier in SMC and
>>>>>>>>> let user-space to handle them following the socket manual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SMC historically decided to use the explicit value given by the user
>>>>>>>>>> to allocate the memory. This is why we used the /2 in smc_core.c.
>>>>>>>>>> That logic was not applied to the default value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, let back to the patch which introduced smc_{w|r}mem knobs, it's a
>>>>>>>>> trade-off to follow original logic of SMC, or follow the socket manual.
>>>>>>>>> We decides to follow the instruction of manuals in the end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand the point. I spend a lot of time trying to decide what to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since it was an intentional decision to not follow the general socket
>>>>>>>> option, and we do not have anyone complaining we do not really have a reason
>>>>>>>> to change it.
>>>>>>>> Changing it means that users with existing configurations would have to
>>>>>>>> change their configs on an update or suddenly expect double the memory
>>>>>>>> consumption.
>>>>>>>> That's why we in the end preffered to stay with the current logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't agree with you more with the points to follow the historic logic
>>>>>>> and not break the user-space applications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking that maybe - if we stay with the historic logic - we should
>>>>>>>> document that desicion somewhere. So that in the future, if a user that
>>>>>>>> expects the man page behavior, has a way to understand what SMC is doing.
>>>>>>>> What do oyu think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, we _really_ need to document it if we change the convention.
>>>>>>> Actually, I spent a lot of time to find the history about the logic of
>>>>>>> buffer (/2 and *2) in SMC. So I'm really in favor of adding
>>>>>>> documentation, at least code comments to help others to understand them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Tony Lu
>>>>>> Iiuc you are changing the default values in this a patch and your other patch:
>>>>>> Default values for real_buf for send and receive:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> before 0227f058aa29 ("net/smc: Unbind r/w buffer size from clcsock and make them tunable")
>>>>>> real_buf=net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1]/2 send: 8k recv: 64k
>>>>> see above: send: 16k recv: 64k
>>>>>> after 0227f058aa29 ("net/smc: Unbind r/w buffer size from clcsock and make them tunable")
>>>>>> real_buf=net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1] send: 16k (16*1024) recv: 128k (131072)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> after net/smc: Fix expected buffersizes and sync logic
>>>>>> real_buf=net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1] send: 16k (16*1024) recv: 128k (131072)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> after net/smc: Unbind smc control from tcp control
>>>>>> real_buf=SMC_*BUF_INIT_SIZE send: 16k (16384) recv: 64k (65536)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If my understanding is correct, then I nack this.
>>>>>> Defaults should be restored to the values before 0227f058aa29.
>>>>>> Otherwise users will notice a change in memory usage that needs to
>>>>>> be avoided or announced more explicitely. (and don't change them twice)
>>>>> See above, I stand corrected. However this patch fixes/restores the buffersize
>>>>> for setsockopt, but not for the default recieve path.
>>>>> Could you please clarify that in the title and description?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to keep the commit title as crisp as possible while providing
>>>> enough information and set the context in the commit message:
>>>>
>>>> "The fixed commit changed the expected behavior of buffersizes set by the
>>>> user using the setsockopt mechanism."
>>>>
>>>> + There is now a whole e-mail thread to consult in case of any further
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your comments
>>>> - Jan
>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>> - Jan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Tony Lu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since we now have our own sysctl, which is also exposed to the user,
>>>>>>>>>> we should sync the logic in a way that both values are the real value
>>>>>>>>>> used by our code and shown by smc_stats. To achieve this this patch
>>>>>>>>>> changes the behavior to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> default = net.smc.{w|r}mem (which defaults to net.ipv4.tcp_{w|r}mem[1])
>>>>>>>>>> sockopt = the setsockopt mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> val = the value assigned in default or via setsockopt
>>>>>>>>>> sk_buf = short for sk_{snd|rcv}buf
>>>>>>>>>> real_buf = the real size of the buffer (sk_buf_size in __smc_buf_create)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> exposed | net/core/sock.c | af_smc.c | smc_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | | +-------------+ | +-----------------+
>>>>>>>>>> | default |----------------------| sk_buf=val*2|---|real_buf=sk_buf/2|
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | | +-------------+ | +-----------------+
>>>>>>>>>> | | | ^
>>>>>>>>>> | | | |
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | +--------------+ | | |
>>>>>>>>>> | sockopt |---| sk_buf=val*2 |------------------------|
>>>>>>>>>> +---------+ | +--------------+ | |
>>>>>>>>>> | | |
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This way both paths follow the same pattern and the expected behavior
>>>>>>>>>> is re-established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 0227f058aa29 ("net/smc: Unbind r/w buffer size from clcsock and make them tunable")
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Karcher <jaka@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> net/smc/af_smc.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>>>>>> net/smc/smc_core.c | 8 ++++----
>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 036532cf39aa..a8c84e7bac99 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ static void smc_destruct(struct sock *sk)
>>>>>>>>>> static struct sock *smc_sock_alloc(struct net *net, struct socket *sock,
>>>>>>>>>> int protocol)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> + int buffersize_without_overhead;
>>>>>>>>>> struct smc_sock *smc;
>>>>>>>>>> struct proto *prot;
>>>>>>>>>> struct sock *sk;
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -379,8 +380,12 @@ static struct sock *smc_sock_alloc(struct net *net, struct socket *sock,
>>>>>>>>>> sk->sk_state = SMC_INIT;
>>>>>>>>>> sk->sk_destruct = smc_destruct;
>>>>>>>>>> sk->sk_protocol = protocol;
>>>>>>>>>> - WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_sndbuf, READ_ONCE(net->smc.sysctl_wmem));
>>>>>>>>>> - WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_rcvbuf, READ_ONCE(net->smc.sysctl_rmem));
>>>>>>>>>> + buffersize_without_overhead =
>>>>>>>>>> + min_t(int, READ_ONCE(net->smc.sysctl_wmem), INT_MAX / 2);
>>>>>>>>>> + WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_sndbuf, buffersize_without_overhead * 2);
>>>>>>>>>> + buffersize_without_overhead =
>>>>>>>>>> + min_t(int, READ_ONCE(net->smc.sysctl_rmem), INT_MAX / 2);
>>>>>>>>>> + WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_rcvbuf, buffersize_without_overhead * 2);
>>>>>>>>>> smc = smc_sk(sk);
>>>>>>>>>> INIT_WORK(&smc->tcp_listen_work, smc_tcp_listen_work);
>>>>>>>>>> INIT_WORK(&smc->connect_work, smc_connect_work);
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 00fb352c2765..36850a2ae167 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2314,10 +2314,10 @@ static int __smc_buf_create(struct smc_sock *smc, bool is_smcd, bool is_rmb)
>>>>>>>>>> if (is_rmb)
>>>>>>>>>> /* use socket recv buffer size (w/o overhead) as start value */
>>>>>>>>>> - sk_buf_size = smc->sk.sk_rcvbuf;
>>>>>>>>>> + sk_buf_size = smc->sk.sk_rcvbuf / 2;
>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>> /* use socket send buffer size (w/o overhead) as start value */
>>>>>>>>>> - sk_buf_size = smc->sk.sk_sndbuf;
>>>>>>>>>> + sk_buf_size = smc->sk.sk_sndbuf / 2;
>>>>>>>>>> for (bufsize_short = smc_compress_bufsize(sk_buf_size, is_smcd, is_rmb);
>>>>>>>>>> bufsize_short >= 0; bufsize_short--) {
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2376,7 +2376,7 @@ static int __smc_buf_create(struct smc_sock *smc, bool is_smcd, bool is_rmb)
>>>>>>>>>> if (is_rmb) {
>>>>>>>>>> conn->rmb_desc = buf_desc;
>>>>>>>>>> conn->rmbe_size_short = bufsize_short;
>>>>>>>>>> - smc->sk.sk_rcvbuf = bufsize;
>>>>>>>>>> + smc->sk.sk_rcvbuf = bufsize * 2;
>>>>>>>>>> atomic_set(&conn->bytes_to_rcv, 0);
>>>>>>>>>> conn->rmbe_update_limit =
>>>>>>>>>> smc_rmb_wnd_update_limit(buf_desc->len);
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2384,7 +2384,7 @@ static int __smc_buf_create(struct smc_sock *smc, bool is_smcd, bool is_rmb)
>>>>>>>>>> smc_ism_set_conn(conn); /* map RMB/smcd_dev to conn */
>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>> conn->sndbuf_desc = buf_desc;
>>>>>>>>>> - smc->sk.sk_sndbuf = bufsize;
>>>>>>>>>> + smc->sk.sk_sndbuf = bufsize * 2;
>>>>>>>>>> atomic_set(&conn->sndbuf_space, bufsize);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 2.34.1