Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid expensive pskb_expand_head() calls

Ilpo Järvinen
2012-04-19T11:57:09Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1991 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 13:30 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 14:10 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >
> > > Now that you have non-zero offset_ack, are the tcp_fragment() callsites
> > > safe and working? ...I'm mostly worried about tcp_mark_head_lost which
> > > does some assumptions about tp->snd_una and TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq, however,
> > > also other fragmenting does not preserve offset_ack properly (which might
> > > not be end of world though)?
> >
> > Good point, I'll take a look.
>
> Hmm, the only point this could matter is if a packet is retransmitted.
>
> For other packets, offset_ack = 0 (default value on skb allocation)
>
> And tcp_retransmit_skb() first call tcp_trim_head(sk, skb) if needed so
> tcp_fragment() is called with == 0
>
> if (before(TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq, tp->snd_una)) {
> if (before(TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq, tp->snd_una))
> BUG();
> if (tcp_trim_head(sk, skb))
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> ...
> if (skb->len > cur_mss) {
> if (tcp_fragment(sk, skb, cur_mss, cur_mss))
>
>
>
> I could add a BUG_ON(offset_ack == 0) to make sure this assertion is
> true.

If you end up putting something like that make sure you use WARN_ON
instead as this surely isn't fatal enough to warrant full stop of the
box :-).

> What do you think ?

I'm not concerned of the output side, that seems to work because
of the in tcp_retransmit_skb getting rid of the extra first.

The ACK input stuff is more interesting, e.g., this one in
tcp_mark_head_lost:

err = tcp_fragment(sk, skb, (packets - oldcnt) * mss, mss);

It splits from TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + (packets - oldcnt) * mss whereas
I think the desired point would be: TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + offset_ack +
(packets - oldcnt) * mss?

...There is similar case in sacktag code too while it's aligning to mss
boundaries in tcp_match_skb_to_sack.

--
i.