From: Leonard Crestez <lcrestez@drivenets.com>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>,
Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: Delay sending non-probes for RFC4821 mtu probing
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:09:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5af52ab4-237f-8646-76e4-5e24236d9b4a@drivenets.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQykBebycW1XcvD=NGan+BrJ3N1m5Q-pWs5vyYNmQQLjrBw@mail.gmail.com>
On 26.04.2021 18:59, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 10:34 PM Leonard Crestez <lcrestez@drivenets.com> wrote:
>> On 4/21/21 3:47 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 6:21 AM Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If the goal is to increase the frequency of PMTU probes, which seems
>>> like a valid goal, I would suggest that we rethink the Linux heuristic
>>> for triggering PMTU probes in the light of the fact that the loss
>>> detection mechanism is now RACK-TLP, which provides quick recovery in
>>> a much wider variety of scenarios.
>>
>>> You mention:
>>>> Linux waits for probe_size + (1 + retries) * mss_cache to be available
>>>
>>> The code in question seems to be:
>>>
>>> size_needed = probe_size + (tp->reordering + 1) * tp->mss_cache;
>>> How about just changing this to:
>>>
>>> size_needed = probe_size + tp->mss_cache;
>>>
>>> The rationale would be that if that amount of data is available, then
>>> the sender can send one probe and one following current-mss-size
>>> packet. If the path MTU has not increased to allow the probe of size
>>> probe_size to pass through the network, then the following
>>> current-mss-size packet will likely pass through the network, generate
>>> a SACK, and trigger a RACK fast recovery 1/4*min_rtt later, when the
>>> RACK reorder timer fires.
>>
>> This appears to almost work except it stalls after a while. I spend some
>> time investigating it and it seems that cwnd is shrunk on mss increases
>> and does not go back up. This causes probes to be skipped because of a
>> "snd_cwnd < 11" condition.
>>
>> I don't undestand where that magical "11" comes from, could that be
>> shrunk. Maybe it's meant to only send probes when the cwnd is above the
>> default of 10? Then maybe mtu_probe_success shouldn't shrink mss below
>> what is required for an additional probe, or at least round-up.
>>
>> The shrinkage of cwnd is a problem with this "short probes" approach
>> because tcp_is_cwnd_limited returns false because tp->max_packets_out is
>> smaller (4). With longer probes tp->max_packets_out is larger (6) so
>> tcp_is_cwnd_limited returns true even for a cwnd of 10.
>>
>> I'm testing using namespace-to-namespace loopback so my delays are close
>> to zero. I tried to introduce an artificial delay of 30ms (using tc
>> netem) and it works but 20ms does not.
>
> I agree the magic 11 seems outdated and unnecessarily high, given RACK-TLP.
>
> I think it would be fine to change the magic 11 to a magic
> (TCP_FASTRETRANS_THRESH+1), aka 3+1=4:
>
> - tp->snd_cwnd < 11 ||
> + p->snd_cwnd < (TCP_FASTRETRANS_THRESH + 1) ||
>
> As long as the cwnd is >= TCP_FASTRETRANS_THRESH+1 then the sender
> should usually be able to send the 1 probe packet and then 3
> additional packets beyond the probe, and in the common case (with no
> reordering) then with failed probes this should allow the sender to
> quickly receive 3 SACKed segments and enter fast recovery quickly.
> Even if the sender doesn't have 3 additional packets, or if reordering
> has been detected, then RACK-TLP should be able to start recovery
> quickly (5/4*RTT if there is at least one SACK, or 2*RTT for a TLP if
> there is no SACK).
As far as I understand tp->reordering is a dynamic evaluation of the
fastretrans threshold to deal with environments with lots of reordering.
Your suggestion seems equivalent to the current size_needed calculation
except using packets instead of bytes.
Wouldn't it be easier to drop the "11" check and just verify that
size_needed fits into cwnd as bytes?
--
Regards,
Leonard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-26 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-21 10:21 [RFC] tcp: Delay sending non-probes for RFC4821 mtu probing Leonard Crestez
2021-04-21 12:47 ` Neal Cardwell
[not found] ` <CAH56bmDBGsHOSjJpo=TseUATOh0cZqTMFyFO1sqtQmMrTPHtrA@mail.gmail.com>
2021-04-21 16:45 ` Fwd: " Matt Mathis
2021-04-26 2:32 ` Leonard Crestez
2021-04-26 2:34 ` Leonard Crestez
2021-04-26 3:20 ` Matt Mathis
2021-04-26 15:59 ` Neal Cardwell
2021-04-26 17:09 ` Leonard Crestez [this message]
2021-04-26 17:24 ` Neal Cardwell
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=5af52ab4-237f-8646-76e4-5e24236d9b4a@drivenets.com \
--to=lcrestez@drivenets.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=johnwheffner@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mattmathis@google.com \
--cc=ncardwell@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=soheil@google.com \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
--cc=ycheng@google.com \
--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).