From: Ido Yariv <ido@wizery.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ido Yariv <idox.yariv@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tcp: Fix a PTO timing granularity issue
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 13:02:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150526170222.GA13376@WorkStation.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432657435.4060.267.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Hi Eric,
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 10:25 -0400, Ido Yariv wrote:
> > The Tail Loss Probe RFC specifies that the PTO value should be set to
> > max(2 * SRTT, 10ms), where SRTT is the smoothed round-trip time.
> >
> > The PTO value is converted to jiffies, so the timer might expire
> > prematurely. This is especially problematic on systems in which HZ=100.
> >
> > To work around this issue, increase the number of jiffies by one,
> > ensuring that the timeout won't expire in less than 10ms.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ido Yariv <idox.yariv@intel.com>
> > ---
> > 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 534e5fd..6f57d3d 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > @@ -2207,7 +2207,7 @@ bool tcp_schedule_loss_probe(struct sock *sk)
> > if (tp->packets_out == 1)
> > timeout = max_t(u32, timeout,
> > (rtt + (rtt >> 1) + TCP_DELACK_MAX));
> > - timeout = max_t(u32, timeout, msecs_to_jiffies(10));
> > + timeout = max_t(u32, timeout, msecs_to_jiffies(10) + 1);
> >
> > /* If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place. */
> > tlp_time_stamp = tcp_time_stamp + timeout;
>
> Have you really hit an issue, or did you send this patch after all these
> msecs_to_jiffies() discussions on lkml/netdev ?
This actually fixed a specific issue I ran into. This issue caused a
degradation in throughput in a benchmark which sent relatively small
chunks of data (100KB) in a loop. The impact was quite substantial -
with this patch, throughput increased by up to 50% on the platform this
was tested on.
>
> Not sure this is the right fix.
>
> TLP was really tested with an effective min delay of 10ms.
>
> Adding 10% for the sake of crazy HZ=100 builds seems a high price.
> (All recent TCP changes were tested with HZ=1000 BTW ...)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> index 534e5fdb04c11152bae36f47a786e8b10b823cd3..5321df89af9b59c6727395c489e6f9b2770dcd5e 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> @@ -2208,6 +2208,9 @@ bool tcp_schedule_loss_probe(struct sock *sk)
> timeout = max_t(u32, timeout,
> (rtt + (rtt >> 1) + TCP_DELACK_MAX));
> timeout = max_t(u32, timeout, msecs_to_jiffies(10));
> +#if HZ <= 100
> + timeout = max_t(u32, timeout, 2);
> +#endif
>
> /* If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place. */
> tlp_time_stamp = tcp_time_stamp + timeout;
This was actually the first incarnation of this patch. However, while
the impact of this issue when HZ=100 is the greatest, it can also impact
other settings as well. For instance, if HZ=250, the timer could expire
after a bit over 8ms instead of 10ms, and 9ms for HZ=1000.
By increasing the number of jiffies, we ensure that we'll wait at least
10ms but never less than that, so for HZ=1000, it'll be anywhere between
10ms and 11ms instead of 9ms and 10ms.
Thanks,
Ido.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-26 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-26 14:25 [PATCH] net: tcp: Fix a PTO timing granularity issue Ido Yariv
2015-05-26 16:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-26 17:02 ` Ido Yariv [this message]
2015-05-26 17:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-26 17:55 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-26 18:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-26 20:17 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-27 11:36 ` David Laight
2015-05-27 13:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-27 14:40 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-27 14:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-27 15:23 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-27 16:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-27 16:54 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-27 17:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-05-27 19:15 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-28 4:37 ` Ido Yariv
2015-05-28 8:55 ` David Laight
2015-05-28 12:33 ` [PATCH v6] " Ido Yariv
2015-05-26 18:25 ` [PATCH] " Eric Dumazet
2015-05-26 19:39 ` Ido Yariv
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=20150526170222.GA13376@WorkStation.home \
--to=ido@wizery.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=idox.yariv@intel.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nanditad@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).