[Bloat] generic tcp - window scaling limits

[Bloat] generic tcp - window scaling limits

[Matthias Tafelmeier]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

Hello,

before bringing it forward to LNX netdev and with the risk of restating
something, I wanted to hearken for the take of this here, since it's
also bloating related - when looking at it from the link
clogging/flowyness point of view.

I first surmised some DQL (as done for driver rings - BQL) introduction
to the TCP hard limit could improve perceived flow latency - though the
current hard limit is perfectly enough in conjunction with the window
advertisement/scaling.

As of what I measured here

https://matthias0tafelmeier.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/linux-tcp-window-scaling-quantification-rmemwmem/

it rather appears introducing a kind of per socket settability of the
advertising hard limit maybe organized on a link/receive side realm (be
it a subnet or a flow group) for performance can improve the scene.
Sure, it's not possible to align both ends (RCV/SND) always, but for the
back end world and therefore as a general statement it should hold true.

Let me know if I'm totally going astray.

-- 
Besten Gruß

Matthias Tafelmeier


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: 0x8ADF343B.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 4806 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 538 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] generic tcp - window scaling limits

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Matthias Tafelmeier <matthias.tafelmeier@gmx.net> writes:

> Hello,
>
> before bringing it forward to LNX netdev and with the risk of restating
> something, I wanted to hearken for the take of this here, since it's
> also bloating related - when looking at it from the link
> clogging/flowyness point of view.
>
> I first surmised some DQL (as done for driver rings - BQL) introduction
> to the TCP hard limit could improve perceived flow latency - though the
> current hard limit is perfectly enough in conjunction with the window
> advertisement/scaling.
>
> As of what I measured here
>
> https://matthias0tafelmeier.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/linux-tcp-window-scaling-quantification-rmemwmem/

Erm, what exactly are you trying to show here? As far as I can tell from
the last (1-flow) plot, you are saturating the link in all the tests
(and indeed the BDP for a 1Gbps with 2ms RTT is around 250kb), which
means that the TCP flow is limited by cwin and not rwin; so I'm not sure
you are really testing what you say you are.

I'm not sure why the latency varies with the different tests, though;
you sure there's not something else varying? Have you tried running
Flent with the --socket-stats option and taking a look at the actual
window each flow is using?

-Toke

Re: [Bloat] generic tcp - window scaling limits

[Matthias Tafelmeier]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1526 bytes --]


> Erm, what exactly are you trying to show here? 
I wanted to generically isolate the 'geometry' to expect when scaling
the TCP advertising mem limits. And I must say, it looks a little
askant. Might worth a look at the data structures there. Parallelizing
socket buffers would be rather application specific, I guess. Hm ...

> As far as I can tell from
> the last (1-flow) plot, you are saturating the link in all the tests
> (and indeed the BDP for a 1Gbps with 2ms RTT is around 250kb), which
> means that the TCP flow is limited by cwin and not rwin; so I'm not sure
> you are really testing what you say you are.
That's correct. Excuses for that one, I was decepted by the latency
plots where I surmised to perceive the (reno ~ cubic) saw-toth and the
virtualisation was adding a tbf instance on one of the links. All that
perfectly explains why I wasn't influencing bandwith at all.

> I'm not sure why the latency varies with the different tests, though;
> you sure there's not something else varying? Have you tried running
> Flent with the --socket-stats option and taking a look at the actual
Reran/updated (including --socket-stats) everything and that's now way
more comforting. There are not such performance rifts anymore as
perceived beforehand - 'no low hanging fruit'. For the per link/peering
tuning I mentioned, that's appearing to be more application specific
logic (syscall based) then I'd amend.


Thanks for having had a look.

-- 
Besten Gruß

Matthias Tafelmeier


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: 0x8ADF343B.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 4806 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 538 bytes --]