> On 13 Jun 2019, at 16:25, Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 08:57 +0100, Håkon Bugge wrote:
>> During certain workloads, the default CM response timeout is too
>> short, leading to excessive retries. Hence, make it configurable
>> through sysctl. While at it, also make number of CM retries
>> configurable.
>>
>> The defaults are not changed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Håkon Bugge <haakon.bu...@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> v1 -> v2:
>> * Added unregister_net_sysctl_table() in cma_cleanup()
>> ---
>> drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> --
>> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> This has been sitting on patchworks since forever. Presumably because
> Jason and I neither one felt like we really wanted it, but also
> couldn't justify flat refusing it.
I thought the agreement was to use NL and iproute2. But I haven't had the
capacity.
> Well, I've made up my mind, so
> unless Jason wants to argue the other side, I'm rejecting this patch.
> Here's why. The whole concept of a timeout is to help recovery in a
> situation that overloads one end of the connection. There is a
> relationship between the max queue backlog on the one host and the
> timeout on the other host.
If you refer to the backlog parameter in rdma_listen(), I cannot see it being
used at all for IB.
For CX-3, which is paravirtualized wrt. MAD packets, it is the proxy UD receive
queue length for the PF driver that can be construed as a backlog. Remember
that any MAD packet being sent from a VF or the PF itself, is sent to a proxy
UD QP in the PF. Those packets are then multiplexed out on the real QP0/1.
Incoming MAD packets are demultiplexed and sent once more to the proxy QP in
the VF.
> Generally, in order for a request to get
> dropped and us to need to retransmit, the queue must already have a
> full backlog. So, how long does it take a heavily loaded system to
> process a full backlog? That, plus a fuzz for a margin of error,
> should be our timeout. We shouldn't be asking users to configure it.
Customer configures #VMs and different workload may lead to way different
number of CM connections. The proxying of MAD packet through the PF driver has
a finite packet rate. With 64 VMs, 10.000 QPs on each, all going down due to a
switch failing or similar, you have 640.000 DREQs to be sent, and with the
finite packet rate of MA packets through the PF, this takes more than the
current CM timeout. And then you re-transmit and increase the burden of the PF
proxying.
So, we can change the default to cope with this. But, a MAD packet is
unreliable, we may have transient loss. In this case, we want a short timeout.
> However, if users change the default backlog queue on their systems,
> *then* it would make sense to have the users also change the timeout
> here, but I think guidance would be helpful.
>
> So, to revive this patch, what I'd like to see is some attempt to
> actually quantify a reasonable timeout for the default backlog depth,
> then the patch should actually change the default to that reasonable
> timeout, and then put in the ability to adjust the timeout with some
> sort of doc guidance on how to calculate a reasonable timeout based on
> configured backlog depth.
I can agree to this :-)
Thxs, Håkon
>
> --
> Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com>
> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57
> 2FDD
