2016-04-21 15:12 GMT-07:00 Michael Ma <make0...@gmail.com>: > 2016-04-21 5:41 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: >> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 22:51 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: >>> 2016-04-20 15:34 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: >>> > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: >>> >> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: >>> >> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote: >>> >> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so >>> >> >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't >>> >> >> really have multiple interfaces... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit queues to >>> >> >> different classes by doing some math on the bandwidth limit if I >>> >> >> understand correctly, which seems to be less convenient compared with >>> >> >> a solution purely within HTB. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I assume that with this solution I can still share qdisc among >>> >> >> multiple transmit queues - please let me know if this is not the case. >>> >> > >>> >> > Note that this MQ + HTB thing works well, unless you use a bonding >>> >> > device. (Or you need the MQ+HTB on the slaves, with no way of sharing >>> >> > tokens between the slaves) >>> >> >>> >> Actually MQ+HTB works well for small packets - like flow of 512 byte >>> >> packets can be throttled by HTB using one txq without being affected >>> >> by other flows with small packets. However I found using this solution >>> >> large packets (10k for example) will only achieve very limited >>> >> bandwidth. In my test I used MQ to assign one txq to a HTB which sets >>> >> rate at 1Gbit/s, 512 byte packets can achieve the ceiling rate by >>> >> using 30 threads. But sending 10k packets using 10 threads has only 10 >>> >> Mbit/s with the same TC configuration. If I increase burst and cburst >>> >> of HTB to some extreme large value (like 50MB) the ceiling rate can be >>> >> hit. >>> >> >>> >> The strange thing is that I don't see this problem when using HTB as >>> >> the root. So txq number seems to be a factor here - however it's >>> >> really hard to understand why would it only affect larger packets. Is >>> >> this a known issue? Any suggestion on how to investigate the issue >>> >> further? Profiling shows that the cpu utilization is pretty low. >>> > >>> > You could try >>> > >>> > perf record -a -g -e skb:kfree_skb sleep 5 >>> > perf report >>> > >>> > So that you see where the packets are dropped. >>> > >>> > Chances are that your UDP sockets SO_SNDBUF is too big, and packets are >>> > dropped at qdisc enqueue time, instead of having backpressure. >>> > >>> >>> Thanks for the hint - how should I read the perf report? Also we're >>> using TCP socket in this testing - TCP window size is set to 70kB. >> >> But how are you telling TCP to send 10k packets ? >> > We just write to the socket with 10k buffer and wait for a response > from the server (using read()) before the next write. Using tcpdump I > can see the 10k write is actually sent through 3 packets > (7.3k/1.5k/1.3k). > >> AFAIK you can not : TCP happily aggregates packets in write queue >> (see current MSG_EOR discussion) >> >> I suspect a bug in your tc settings. >> >> > > Could you help to check my tc setting? > > sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 root mqprio num_tc 6 map 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 > queues 19@0 1@19 1@20 1@21 1@22 1@23 hw 0 > sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 805a:1a handle 8001:0 htb default 10 > sudo tc class add dev eth0 parent 8001: classid 8001:10 htb rate 1000Mbit > > I didn't set r2q/burst/cburst/mtu/mpu so the default value should be used.
Just to circle back on this - it seems there is 200ms delay sometimes during data push which stalled the sending: 01:34:44.046232 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2863, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 8740) 10.101.197.75.59126 > 10.101.197.105.redwood-broker: . 250025:258713(8688) ack 1901 win 58 <nop,nop,timestamp 507571833 196626529> 01:34:44.046304 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 15420, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 52) 10.101.197.105.redwood-broker > 10.101.197.75.59126: ., cksum 0x187d (correct), 1901:1901(0) ack 258713 win 232 <nop,nop,timestamp 196626529 507571833> 01:34:44.247184 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2869, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 1364) 10.101.197.75.59126 > 10.101.197.105.redwood-broker: P 258713:260025(1312) ack 1901 win 58 <nop,nop,timestamp 507571833 196626529> 01:34:44.247186 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2870, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 1364) 10.101.197.75.59126 > 10.101.197.105.redwood-broker: P 258713:260025(1312) ack 1901 win 58 <nop,nop,timestamp 507572034 196626529> at 44.046s there was an ack from the iperf server (10.101.197.105) for a previous sent packet of size 8740, then after exact 200 ms (44.247s above) two identical packets were pushed from the client (10.101.197.75). It looks like there is some TCP timer triggered - however disabling Nagel or delayed ack doesn't help. So maybe TC has delayed the first packet and for some reason only after 200 ms seconds the packet was sent together with the retransmitted one. As I mentioned before, setting burst/cburst to 50MB eliminates this problem. Also setting the TCP receive window on server side to some value from 4k to 12k solved the issue - but from TCPDump this might just caused the packet to be segmented further so it's not gated significantly by HTB. Using TCP window auto-scaling doesn't help. It all looks like HTB delayed a packet when the rate limit is hit (did manual computation and found the timing matches) and instead of sending it through a TC timer (which should be much less than 200ms - 100ms?), the packet was sent when TCP decides to retransmit the same packet.
