From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] tcp: Limit number of segments generated by GSO per skb
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:00:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5016F5E9.7010704@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1343677270.2667.31.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
On 07/30/2012 12:41 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 10:23 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 07/30/2012 10:16 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> A peer (or local user) may cause TCP to use a nominal MSS of as little
>>> as 88 (actual MSS of 76 with timestamps). Given that we have a
>>> sufficiently prodigious local sender and the peer ACKs quickly enough,
>>> it is nevertheless possible to grow the window for such a connection
>>> to the point that we will try to send just under 64K at once. This
>>> results in a single skb that expands to 861 segments.
>>>
>>> In some drivers with TSO support, such an skb will require hundreds of
>>> DMA descriptors; a substantial fraction of a TX ring or even more than
>>> a full ring. The TX queue selected for the skb may stall and trigger
>>> the TX watchdog repeatedly (since the problem skb will be retried
>>> after the TX reset). This particularly affects sfc, for which the
>>> issue is designated as CVE-2012-3412. However it may be that some
>>> hardware or firmware also fails to handle such an extreme TSO request
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> Therefore, limit the number of segments per skb to 100. This should
>>> make no difference to behaviour unless the actual MSS is less than
>>> about 700.
>>
>> Please do not do this...or at least allow over-rides. We love
>> the trick of seting very small MSS and making the NICs generate
>> huge numbers of small TCP frames with efficient user-space
>> logic. We use this for stateful TCP load testing when high
>> numbers of tcp packets-per-second is desired.
>
> Please test whether this actually makes a difference - my suspicion is
> that 100 segments per skb is easily enough to prevent the host being a
> bottleneck.
Any CPU I can save I can use for other tasks. If we can use the
NIC's offload features to segment pkts, then we get near linear
increase in pkts-per-second by adding NICs..at least up to whatever
the total bandwidth of the system is...
If you want to have the OS default to a safe value, that is
fine by me..but please give us a tunable so that we can get
the old behaviour.
It's always possible I'm not the only one using this,
and I think it would be considered bad form to break
existing features and provide no work-around.
Thanks,
Ben
>
>> Intel NICs, including 10G, work just fine with minimal MSS
>> in this scenario.
>
> I'll leave this to the Intel maintainers to answer.
>
> Ben.
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-30 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-30 17:14 [PATCH net 0/2] Prevent extreme TSO parameters from stalling TX queues Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 17:16 ` [PATCH net 1/2] tcp: Limit number of segments generated by GSO per skb Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 17:23 ` Ben Greear
2012-07-30 19:41 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 21:00 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2012-07-30 17:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-30 19:35 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 19:56 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 21:46 ` David Miller
2012-07-30 22:20 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 22:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-07-30 23:07 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 17:17 ` [PATCH net 2/2] sfc: Correct the minimum TX queue size Ben Hutchings
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=5016F5E9.7010704@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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