From: Ido Yariv <ido@wizery.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"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" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@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: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:23:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150527152337.GB558@WorkStation.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432738585.4060.392.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Hi Eric,
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 07:56:25AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 10:40 -0400, Ido Yariv wrote:
>
> > HZ=100 is used on some embedded platforms, so it's still something we
> > have to deal with unfortunately..
> >
> > Since the '2' here is a lower bound, and msecs_to_jiffies(10) will
> > return values greater than 2 for HZ>100 anyway, always ensuring the
> > 2 jiffies lower bound shouldn't impact the behavior when HZ=1000.
> >
> > However, as far as I can tell, comparing msecs_to_jiffies(10) to 2, or
> > comparing the whole timeout to 2 doesn't make much difference, since
> > msecs_to_jiffies isn't inlined.
> >
> > In other words, keeping the #if shouldn't make much difference in behavior,
> > but will save the small comparison.
>
> Yes, I guess David point is to have a macro in include/linux/tcp.h so
> that we can have a nice comment, and not having #if ... in a C file.
>
> Maybe other timers in TCP need the same care (I am not asking you to
> find them, but having a macro would ease things perhaps)
Something along the lines of the patch below?
Thanks,
Ido.
>From 562019884d1b2c7619ce3f49ecb595147d28bbdd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ido Yariv <ido@wizery.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 08:23:13 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v3] net: tcp: Fix a PTO timing granularity issue
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 may expire
prematurely.
This is especially problematic on systems in which HZ <= 100, so work
around this by setting the timeout to at least 2 jiffies on such
systems.
The 10ms figure was originally selected based on tests performed with
the current implementation and HZ = 1000. Thus, leave the behavior on
systems with HZ > 100 unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Ido Yariv <idox.yariv@intel.com>
---
include/net/tcp.h | 9 +++++++++
net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/net/tcp.h b/include/net/tcp.h
index 2bb2bad..86090b6 100644
--- a/include/net/tcp.h
+++ b/include/net/tcp.h
@@ -1751,4 +1751,13 @@ static inline void skb_set_tcp_pure_ack(struct sk_buff *skb)
skb->truesize = 2;
}
+/* Convert msecs to jiffies, ensuring that the return value is always at least
+ * 2. This can be used when setting tick-based timers to guarantee that they
+ * won't expire right away.
+ */
+static inline unsigned long tcp_safe_msecs_to_jiffies(const unsigned int m)
+{
+ return max_t(u32, 2, msecs_to_jiffies(m));
+}
+
#endif /* _TCP_H */
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
index 534e5fd..83021c5 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, tcp_safe_msecs_to_jiffies(10));
/* If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place. */
tlp_time_stamp = tcp_time_stamp + timeout;
--
2.1.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-27 15:23 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
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 [this message]
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=20150527152337.GB558@WorkStation.home \
--to=ido@wizery.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.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).