From: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Cc: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
"Blake Matheny" <bmatheny@fb.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>, Steve Ibanez <sibanez@stanford.edu>,
Yousuk Seung <ysseung@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: force cwnd at least 2 in tcp_cwnd_reduction
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 04:32:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D406FF52-62BF-46AE-B815-15280D86E8D8@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQy=MsiEBCr+Mnp97mp0MxDqrA+_KiZEQehgcDfe9L-hghQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/28/18, 1:48 PM, "netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org on behalf of Neal Cardwell" <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org on behalf of ncardwell@google.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:20 PM Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@fb.com> wrote:
>
> I just looked at 4.18 traces and the behavior is as follows:
>
> Host A sends the last packets of the request
>
> Host B receives them, and the last packet is marked with congestion (CE)
>
> Host B sends ACKs for packets not marked with congestion
>
> Host B sends data packet with reply and ACK for packet marked with congestion (TCP flag ECE)
>
> Host A receives ACKs with no ECE flag
>
> Host A receives data packet with ACK for the last packet of request and has TCP ECE bit set
>
> Host A sends 1st data packet of the next request with TCP flag CWR
>
> Host B receives the packet (as seen in tcpdump at B), no CE flag
>
> Host B sends a dup ACK that also has the TCP ECE flag
>
> Host A RTO timer fires!
>
> Host A to send the next packet
>
> Host A receives an ACK for everything it has sent (i.e. Host B did receive 1st packet of request)
>
> Host A send more packets…
Thanks, Larry! This is very interesting. I don't know the cause, but
this reminds me of an issue Steve Ibanez raised on the netdev list
last December, where he was seeing cases with DCTCP where a CWR packet
would be received and buffered by Host B but not ACKed by Host B. This
was the thread "Re: Linux ECN Handling", starting around December 5. I
have cc-ed Steve.
I wonder if this may somehow be related to the DCTCP logic to rewind
tp->rcv_nxt and call tcp_send_ack(), and then restore tp->rcv_nxt, if
DCTCP notices that the incoming CE bits have been changed while the
receiver thinks it is holding on to a delayed ACK (in
dctcp_ce_state_0_to_1() and dctcp_ce_state_1_to_0()). I wonder if the
"synthetic" call to tcp_send_ack() somehow has side effects in the
delayed ACK state machine that can cause the connection to forget that
it still needs to fire a delayed ACK, even though it just sent an ACK
just now.
neal
Here is a packetdrill script that reproduces the problem:
// Repro bug that does not ack data, not even with delayed-ack
0.000 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
0.000 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
0.000 setsockopt(3, SOL_TCP, TCP_CONGESTION, "dctcp", 5) = 0
0.000 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0
0.000 listen(3, 1) = 0
0.100 < [ect0] SEW 0:0(0) win 32792 <mss 1000,sackOK,nop,nop,nop,wscale 7>
0.100 > SE. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 5>
0.110 < [ect0] . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 257
0.200 accept(3, ..., ...) = 4
0.200 < [ect0] . 1:1001(1000) ack 1 win 257
0.200 > [ect0] . 1:1(0) ack 1001
0.200 write(4, ..., 1) = 1
0.200 > [ect0] P. 1:2(1) ack 1001
0.200 < [ect0] . 1001:2001(1000) ack 2 win 257
0.200 write(4, ..., 1) = 1
0.200 > [ect0] P. 2:3(1) ack 2001
0.200 < [ect0] . 2001:3001(1000) ack 3 win 257
0.200 < [ect0] . 3001:4001(1000) ack 3 win 257
0.200 > [ect0] . 3:3(0) ack 4001
0.210 < [ce] P. 4001:4501(500) ack 3 win 257
+0.001 read(4, ..., 4500) = 4500
+0 write(4, ..., 1) = 1
+0 > [ect0] PE. 3:4(1) ack 4501
+0.010 < [ect0] W. 4501:5501(1000) ack 4 win 257
+0 > [ect0] E. 4:4(0) ack 4501 // dup ack sent
+0.311 < [ect0] . 5501:6501(1000) ack 4 win 257 // Long RTO
+0 > [ect0] . 4:4(0) ack 6501 // now acks everything
+0.500 < F. 9501:9501(0) ack 4 win 257
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-29 4:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-27 2:34 [PATCH net-next v2] tcp: force cwnd at least 2 in tcp_cwnd_reduction Lawrence Brakmo
2018-06-27 15:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-06-27 15:06 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-06-27 15:24 ` Neal Cardwell
2018-06-27 16:57 ` Yuchung Cheng
[not found] ` <9745C5DD-BB86-4A7D-B607-4B8AA0E07245@fb.com>
2018-06-27 22:27 ` Yuchung Cheng
[not found] ` <ADD5DEDF-213D-4375-B556-E9E44DD94130@fb.com>
2018-06-28 20:47 ` Neal Cardwell
2018-06-28 20:58 ` Lawrence Brakmo
2018-06-29 4:32 ` Lawrence Brakmo [this message]
2018-06-29 18:55 ` Lawrence Brakmo
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=D406FF52-62BF-46AE-B815-15280D86E8D8@fb.com \
--to=brakmo@fb.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bmatheny@fb.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=mattmathis@google.com \
--cc=ncardwell@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sibanez@stanford.edu \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
--cc=ycheng@google.com \
--cc=ysseung@google.com \
/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