From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EFDC54EAA for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238250AbjA3S2V (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2023 13:28:21 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57696 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238148AbjA3S2C (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2023 13:28:02 -0500 Received: from smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com (smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com [185.125.188.123]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB8E4672A for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C648B3F2F6 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:24:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical.com; s=20210705; t=1675103099; bh=8UFl0BB/+EqxZ0AY+dFboreesk9jsr8DPikFfJhc9vU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=nv6qZb9NhEW6IP0t4328myPNYjSHPcT/DFO0IysVdYemcteWkb8GNU4rUm4mpplpY Md8JF+KgS0ELd0Zckbms27Taosht00TLdPcGBD5QJI1qWy7rvNJ/MUV1n7Wj5FP1IL 9KUld5y7HqXWGE7RoKjpAmqzsLoTlOv+qDda0XAMHJG5g7acdoDER/fFLDrh+MRnsQ rU68buSSrObfAXTwmAhdqOxECWsoPOVKX4MAOfk8aShlgYlt6iyqhB41oRHtW5ERYK nLrOBqFEiZAdkMmfYUXKnw7GW6SSBwDhln2S/ruX1Ve9XiVVBv+GfJ3NPZPPc09Lzb SPV+JHlbZ7Cbw== Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id n7-20020a05600c3b8700b003dc55dcb298so2276085wms.8 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:24:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=8UFl0BB/+EqxZ0AY+dFboreesk9jsr8DPikFfJhc9vU=; b=Xk6Azoyit1NmIV7SCtivcwjRQqJhObj13q53nadvJDxNtBDy1YA+OvuMQ9x9RL72IC NUq2c3HpX8+Am3w8ZHv6ixtgiqtDba9sx77wwhukIiI4TS05ctnvvBjdHzWoVJTYvHCW UTUW/jrnOsAMnSxJTdvQ3HSWwWF/Xw+LlvvTq1SwayEwdHKqoyes7WlsR84YZ4dXb1Eu u++t2c1Vd2W33AWu20gm/JxUDbJuYVmbNtNNFYblaCG8YSV0AKFKiDLMqrnNGhNakx/+ RQhZkFuc4IWv5dfD/IqsdEF11xhIGmv7sVJwAfxf+v9J858N1b592PNaVumJMzi0pmOn IIdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kruKiwszWZrLf7C/aYWpsjCX4kX9Lp1SoXeuaVH+PI4NnXGZ5DJ Vs20AXK5AzfhrW2BNgg7LMnPqKKAaQDiP+HMOS+OUykFS53RDsMkbJYLPePvJRaOMhWGc5GjhDg 2RS513Eijkdef64P/vs3urxsXwpN9AOKa2WrmZ9n05Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:a03:b0:244:48b3:d138 with SMTP id co3-20020a0560000a0300b0024448b3d138mr49149896wrb.54.1675103099501; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:24:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuKKG26EhahK2hLJsrCzdr3xskHuWfLDgUO+X0LmvlGNXwEwfDzz4SrfD0/lShClsCgCJ2PmA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:a03:b0:244:48b3:d138 with SMTP id co3-20020a0560000a0300b0024448b3d138mr49149880wrb.54.1675103099250; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from qwirkle ([81.2.157.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q3-20020adff503000000b002bfae1398bbsm12789223wro.42.2023.01.30.10.24.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:24:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:24:56 +0000 From: Andrei Gherzan To: Willem de Bruijn Cc: Paolo Abeni , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Shuah Khan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: net: udpgso_bench_tx: Introduce exponential back-off retries Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23/01/30 12:35PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:31 PM Andrei Gherzan > wrote: > > > > On 23/01/30 11:29AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:23 AM Andrei Gherzan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 23/01/30 04:15PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > > > > > On 23/01/30 11:03AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrei Gherzan > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23/01/30 08:35AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 7:51 AM Andrei Gherzan > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23/01/30 09:26AM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 17:03 -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:16 PM Andrei Gherzan > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tx and rx test programs are used in a couple of test scripts including > > > > > > > > > > > > "udpgro_bench.sh". Taking this as an example, when the rx/tx programs > > > > > > > > > > > > are invoked subsequently, there is a chance that the rx one is not ready to > > > > > > > > > > > > accept socket connections. This racing bug could fail the test with at > > > > > > > > > > > > least one of the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ./udpgso_bench_tx: connect: Connection refused > > > > > > > > > > > > ./udpgso_bench_tx: sendmsg: Connection refused > > > > > > > > > > > > ./udpgso_bench_tx: write: Connection refused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This change addresses this by adding routines that retry the socket > > > > > > > > > > > > operations with an exponential back off algorithm from 100ms to 2s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 3a687bef148d ("selftests: udp gso benchmark") > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Synchronizing the two processes is indeed tricky. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps more robust is opening an initial TCP connection, with > > > > > > > > > > > SO_RCVTIMEO to bound the waiting time. That covers all tests in one > > > > > > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another option would be waiting for the listener(tcp)/receiver(udp) > > > > > > > > > > socket to show up in 'ss' output before firing-up the client - quite > > > > > > > > > > alike what mptcp self-tests are doing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like this idea. I have tested it and it works as expected with the > > > > > > > > > exeception of: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ./udpgso_bench_tx: sendmsg: No buffer space available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any ideas on how to handle this? I could retry and that works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This happens (also) without the zerocopy flag, right? That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It might mean reaching the sndbuf limit, which can be adjusted with > > > > > > > > SO_SNDBUF (or SO_SNDBUFFORCE if CAP_NET_ADMIN). Though I would not > > > > > > > > expect this test to bump up against that limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few zerocopy specific reasons are captured in > > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/msg_zerocopy.html#transmission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have dug a bit more into this, and it does look like your hint was in > > > > > > > the right direction. The fails I'm seeing are only with the zerocopy > > > > > > > flag. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the reasons (doc) above I can only assume optmem limit as I've > > > > > > > reproduced it with unlimited locked pages and the fails are transient. > > > > > > > That leaves optmem limit. Bumping the value I have by default (20480) to > > > > > > > (2048000) made the sendmsg succeed as expected. On the other hand, the > > > > > > > tests started to fail with something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ./udpgso_bench_tx: Unexpected number of Zerocopy completions: 774783 > > > > > > > expected 773707 received > > > > > > > > > > > > More zerocopy completions than number of sends. I have not seen this before. > > > > > > > > > > > > The completions are ranges of IDs, one per send call for datagram sockets. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even with segmentation offload, the counter increases per call, not per segment. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you experience this without any other changes to udpgso_bench_tx.c. > > > > > > Or are there perhaps additional sendmsg calls somewhere (during > > > > > > initial sync) that are not accounted to num_sends? > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, that looks off. No, I have run into this without any changes in > > > > > the tests (besides the retry routine in the shell script that waits for > > > > > rx to come up). Also, as a data point. > > > > > > > > Actually wait. I don't think that is the case here. "expected" is the > > > > number of sends. In this case we sent 1076 more messages than > > > > completions. Am I missing something obvious? > > > > > > Oh indeed. > > > > > > Receiving fewer completions than transmission is more likely. > > > > Exactly, yes. > > > > > This should be the result of datagrams still being somewhere in the > > > system. In a qdisc, or waiting for the network interface to return a > > > completion notification, say. > > > > > > Does this remain if adding a longer wait before the final flush_errqueue? > > > > Yes and no. But not realiably unless I go overboard. > > > > > Or, really, the right fix is to keep polling there until the two are > > > equal, up to some timeout. Currently flush_errqueue calls poll only > > > once. > > > > That makes sense. I have implemented a retry and this ran for a good > > while now. > > > > - flush_errqueue(fd, true); > > + while (true) { > > + flush_errqueue(fd, true); > > + if ((stat_zcopies == num_sends) || (delay >= MAX_DELAY)) > > + break; > > + usleep(delay); > > + delay *= 2; > > + } > > > > What do you think? > > Thanks for running experiments. > > We can avoid the unconditional sleep, as the poll() inside > flush_errqueue already takes a timeout. > > One option is to use start_time = clock_gettime(..) or gettimeofday > before poll, and restart poll until either the exit condition or > timeout is reached, with timeout = orig_time - elapsed_time. Yes, this was more of a quick draft. I was thinking to move it into the flush function (while making it aware of num_sends via a parameter): if (do_poll) { struct pollfd fds = {0}; int ret; unsigned long tnow, tstop; fds.fd = fd; tnow = gettimeofday_ms(); tstop = tnow + POLL_LOOP_TIMEOUT_MS; while ((stat_zcopies != num_sends) && (tnow < tstop)) { ret = poll(&fds, 1, 500); if (ret == 0) { if (cfg_verbose) fprintf(stderr, "poll timeout\n"); } else if (ret < 0) { error(1, errno, "poll"); } tnow = gettimeofday_ms(); } } Does this make more sense? -- Andrei Gherzan