* Re: [Make-wifi-fast] debugging TCP stalls on high-speed wifi
2019-12-12 23:42 ` [Make-wifi-fast] debugging TCP stalls on high-speed wifi Dave Taht
@ 2019-12-13 0:59 ` Simon Barber
2019-12-13 1:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-12-13 8:08 ` Johannes Berg
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Barber @ 2019-12-13 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Taht
Cc: Johannes Berg, Make-Wifi-fast, linux-wireless, Netdev, Neal Cardwell
I’m currently adding ACK thinning to Linux’s GRO code. Quite a simple addition given the way that code works.
Simon
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 3:42 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 1:12 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Thanks for looking :)
>>
>>>> I'm not sure how to do headers-only, but I guess -s100 will work.
>>>>
>>>> https://johannes.sipsolutions.net/files/he-tcp.pcap.xz
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lack of GRO on receiver is probably what is killing performance,
>>> both for receiver (generating gazillions of acks) and sender
>>> (to process all these acks)
>> Yes, I'm aware of this, to some extent. And I'm not saying we should see
>> even close to 1800 Mbps like we have with UDP...
>>
>> Mind you, the biggest thing that kills performance with many ACKs isn't
>> the load on the system - the sender system is only moderately loaded at
>> ~20-25% of a single core with TSO, and around double that without TSO.
>> The thing that kills performance is eating up all the medium time with
>> small non-aggregated packets, due to the the half-duplex nature of WiFi.
>> I know you know, but in case somebody else is reading along :-)
>
> I'm paying attention but pay attention faster if you cc make-wifi-fast.
>
> If you captured the air you'd probably see the sender winning the
> election for airtime 2 or more times in a row,
> it's random and oft dependent on on a variety of factors.
>
> Most Wifi is *not* "half" duplex, which implies it ping pongs between
> send and receive.
>
>>
>> But unless somehow you think processing the (many) ACKs on the sender
>> will cause it to stop transmitting, or something like that, I don't
>> think I should be seeing what I described earlier: we sometimes (have
>> to?) reclaim the entire transmit queue before TCP starts pushing data
>> again. That's less than 2MB split across at least two TCP streams, I
>> don't see why we should have to get to 0 (which takes about 7ms) until
>> more packets come in from TCP?
>
> Perhaps having a budget for ack processing within a 1ms window?
>
>> Or put another way - if I free say 400kB worth of SKBs, what could be
>> the reason we don't see more packets be sent out of the TCP stack within
>> the few ms or so? I guess I have to correlate this somehow with the ACKs
>> so I know how much data is outstanding for ACKs. (*)
>
> yes.
>
> It would be interesting to repeat this test in ht20 mode, and/or using
>
> flent --socket-stats --step-size=.04 --te=upload_streams=2 -t
> whatever_variant_of_test tcp_nup
>
> That will capture some of the tcp stats for you.
>
>>
>> The sk_pacing_shift is set to 7, btw, which should give us 8ms of
>> outstanding data. For now in this setup that's enough(**), and indeed
>> bumping the limit up (setting sk_pacing_shift to say 5) doesn't change
>> anything. So I think this part we actually solved - I get basically the
>> same performance and behaviour with two streams (needed due to GBit LAN
>> on the other side) as with 20 streams.
>>
>>
>>> I had a plan about enabling compressing ACK as I did for SACK
>>> in commit
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=5d9f4262b7ea41ca9981cc790e37cca6e37c789e
>>>
>>> But I have not done it yet.
>>> It is a pity because this would tremendously help wifi I am sure.
>>
>> Nice :-)
>>
>> But that is something the *receiver* would have to do.
>
> Well it is certainly feasible to thin acks on the driver as we did in
> cake. More general. More cpu intensive. I'm happily just awaiting
> eric's work instead.
>
> One thing comcast inadvertently does to most flows is remark them cs1,
> which tosses big data into the bk queue and acks into the be queue. It
> actually helps sometimes.
>
>>
>> The dirty secret here is that we're getting close to 1700 Mbps TCP with
>> Windows in place of Linux in the setup, with the same receiver on the
>> other end (which is actually a single Linux machine with two GBit
>> network connections to the AP). So if we had this I'm sure it'd increase
>> performance, but it still wouldn't explain why we're so much slower than
>> Windows :-)
>>
>> Now, I'm certainly not saying that TCP behaviour is the only reason for
>> the difference, we already found an issue for example where due to a
>> small Windows driver bug some packet extension was always used, and the
>> AP is also buggy in that it needs the extension but didn't request it
>> ... so the two bugs cancelled each other out and things worked well, but
>> our Linux driver believed the AP ... :) Certainly there can be more
>> things like that still, I just started on the TCP side and ran into the
>> queueing behaviour that I cannot explain.
>>
>>
>> In any case, I'll try to dig deeper into the TCP stack to understand the
>> reason for this transmit behaviour.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> johannes
>>
>>
>> (*) Hmm. Now I have another idea. Maybe we have some kind of problem
>> with the medium access configuration, and we transmit all this data
>> without the AP having a chance to send back all the ACKs? Too bad I
>> can't put an air sniffer into the setup - it's a conductive setup.
>
> see above
>>
>>
>> (**) As another aside to this, the next generation HW after this will
>> have 256 frames in a block-ack, so that means instead of up to 64 (we
>> only use 63 for internal reasons) frames aggregated together we'll be
>> able to aggregate 256 (or maybe we again only 255?).
>
> My fervent wish is to somehow be able to mark every frame we can as not
> needing a retransmit in future standards. I've lost track of what ax
> can do. ? And for block ack retries
> to give up far sooner.
>
> you can safely drop all but the last three acks in a flow, and the
> txop itself provides
> a suitable clock.
>
> And, ya know, releasing packets ooo doesn't hurt as much as it used
> to, with rack.
>> Each one of those
>> frames may be an A-MSDU with ~11k content though (only 8k in the setup I
>> have here right now), which means we can get a LOT of data into a single
>> PPDU ...
>
> Just wearing my usual hat, I would prefer to optimize for service
> time, not bandwidth, in the future,
> using smaller txops with this more data in them, than the biggest
> txops possible.
>
> If you constrain your max txop to 2ms in this test, you will see tcp
> in slow start ramp up faster,
> and the ap scale to way more devices, with way less jitter and
> retries. Most flows never get out of slowstart.
>
>> . we'll probably have to bump the sk_pacing_shift to be able to
>> fill that with a single TCP stream, though since we run all our
>> performance numbers with many streams, maybe we should just leave it :)
>
> Please. Optimizing for single flow performance is an academic's game.
>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Make Music, Not War
>
> Dave Täht
> CTO, TekLibre, LLC
> http://www.teklibre.com
> Tel: 1-831-435-0729
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Make-wifi-fast] debugging TCP stalls on high-speed wifi
2019-12-12 23:42 ` [Make-wifi-fast] debugging TCP stalls on high-speed wifi Dave Taht
2019-12-13 0:59 ` Simon Barber
@ 2019-12-13 8:08 ` Johannes Berg
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2019-12-13 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Taht
Cc: Eric Dumazet, Neal Cardwell, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen,
linux-wireless, Netdev, Make-Wifi-fast
On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 15:42 -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
> If you captured the air you'd probably see the sender winning the
> election for airtime 2 or more times in a row,
> it's random and oft dependent on on a variety of factors.
I'm going to try to capture more details - I can probably extract this
out of the firmware but it's more effort.
> Most Wifi is *not* "half" duplex, which implies it ping pongs between
> send and receive.
That's an interesting definition of "half duplex" which doesn't really
match anything that I've seen used or in the literature? What you're
describing sounds more like some sort of "half duplex with token-based
flow control" or something like that to me ...
> > But unless somehow you think processing the (many) ACKs on the sender
> > will cause it to stop transmitting, or something like that, I don't
> > think I should be seeing what I described earlier: we sometimes (have
> > to?) reclaim the entire transmit queue before TCP starts pushing data
> > again. That's less than 2MB split across at least two TCP streams, I
> > don't see why we should have to get to 0 (which takes about 7ms) until
> > more packets come in from TCP?
>
> Perhaps having a budget for ack processing within a 1ms window?
What do you mean? There's such a budget? What kind of budget? I have
plenty of CPU time left, as far as I can tell.
> It would be interesting to repeat this test in ht20 mode,
Why? HT20 is far slower, what would be the advantage. In my experience I
don't hit this until I get to HE80.
> flent --socket-stats --step-size=.04 --te=upload_streams=2 -t
> whatever_variant_of_test tcp_nup
>
> That will capture some of the tcp stats for you.
I guses I can try, but the upload_streams=2 won't actually help - I need
to run towards two different IP addresses - remember that I'm otherwise
limited by a GBit LAN link on the other side right now.
> > But that is something the *receiver* would have to do.
>
> Well it is certainly feasible to thin acks on the driver as we did in
> cake.
I really don't think it would help in my case, either the ACKs are the
problem (which I doubt) and then they're the problem on the air, or
they're not the problem since I have plenty of CPU time to waste on them
...
> One thing comcast inadvertently does to most flows is remark them cs1,
> which tosses big data into the bk queue and acks into the be queue. It
> actually helps sometimes.
I thought about doing this but if I make my flows BK it halves my
throughput (perhaps due to the more then double AIFSN?)
> > (**) As another aside to this, the next generation HW after this will
> > have 256 frames in a block-ack, so that means instead of up to 64 (we
> > only use 63 for internal reasons) frames aggregated together we'll be
> > able to aggregate 256 (or maybe we again only 255?).
>
> My fervent wish is to somehow be able to mark every frame we can as not
> needing a retransmit in future standards.
This can be done since ... oh I don't know, probably 2005 with the
802.11e amendment? Not sure off the top of my head how it interacts with
A-MPDUs though, and probably has bugs if you do that.
> I've lost track of what ax
> can do. ? And for block ack retries
> to give up far sooner.
You can do that too, it's just a local configuration how much you try
each packet. If you give up you leave a hole in the reorder window, but
if you start sending packets that are further ahead then the window, the
old ones will (have to be) released regardless.
> you can safely drop all but the last three acks in a flow, and the
> txop itself provides
> a suitable clock.
Now that's more tricky because once you stick the packets into the
hardware queue you likely have to decide whether or not they're
important.
I can probably think of ways of working around that (similar to the
table-based rate scaling we use), but it's tricky.
> And, ya know, releasing packets ooo doesn't hurt as much as it used
> to, with rack.
:)
That I think is not currently possible with A-MPDUs. It'd also still
have to be opt-in per frame since you can't really do that for anything
but TCP (and probably QUIC? Maybe SCTP?)
> Just wearing my usual hat, I would prefer to optimize for service
> time, not bandwidth, in the future,
> using smaller txops with this more data in them, than the biggest
> txops possible.
Patience. We're getting there now. HE will allow the AP to schedule
everything, and then you don't need TXOPs anymore. The problem is that
winning a TXOP is costly, so you *need* to put as much as possible into
it for good performance.
With HE and the AP scheduling, you win some, you lose some. The client
will lose the ability to actually make any decisions about its transmit
rate and things like that, but the AP can schedule & poll the clients
better without all the overhead.
> If you constrain your max txop to 2ms in this test, you will see tcp
> in slow start ramp up faster,
> and the ap scale to way more devices, with way less jitter and
> retries. Most flows never get out of slowstart.
I'm running a client ... you're forgetting that there's something else
that's actually talking to the AP you're thinking of :-)
> > . we'll probably have to bump the sk_pacing_shift to be able to
> > fill that with a single TCP stream, though since we run all our
> > performance numbers with many streams, maybe we should just leave it :)
>
> Please. Optimizing for single flow performance is an academic's game.
Same here, kinda.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread