From: "'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'" <marcelo.leitner@gmail•com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB•COM>
Cc: "netdev@vger•kernel.org" <netdev@vger•kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver•com>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail•com>,
"linux-sctp@vger•kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: avoid refreshing heartbeat timer too often
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:25:12 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160331212512.GJ3387@mrl.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D54DC1DB0@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:16:52AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: 30 March 2016 13:13
> > Em 30-03-2016 06:37, David Laight escreveu:
> > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > >> Sent: 29 March 2016 14:42
> > >>
> > >> Currently on high rate SCTP streams the heartbeat timer refresh can
> > >> consume quite a lot of resources as timer updates are costly and it
> > >> contains a random factor, which a) is also costly and b) invalidates
> > >> mod_timer() optimization for not editing a timer to the same value.
> > >> It may even cause the timer to be slightly advanced, for no good reason.
> > >
> > > Interesting thoughts:
> > > 1) Is it necessary to use a different 'random factor' until the timer actually
> > > expires?
> >
> > I don't understand you fully here, but we have to have a random factor
> > on timer expire. As noted by Daniel Borkmann on his commit 8f61059a96c2
> > ("net: sctp: improve timer slack calculation for transport HBs"):
>
> When a HEARTBEAT chunk is sent determine the new interval, use that
> interval until the timer actually expires when a new interval is
> calculated. So the random number is only generated once per heartbeat.
>
> > RFC4960, section 8.3 says:
> >
> > On an idle destination address that is allowed to heartbeat,
> > it is recommended that a HEARTBEAT chunk is sent once per RTO
> > of that destination address plus the protocol parameter
> > 'HB.interval', with jittering of +/- 50% of the RTO value,
> > and exponential backoff of the RTO if the previous HEARTBEAT
> > is unanswered.
> >
> > Previous to his commit, it was using a random factor based on jiffies.
> >
> > This patch then assumes that random_A+2 is just as random as random_B as
> > long as it is within the allowed range, avoiding the unnecessary updates.
> >
> > > 2) It might be better to allow the heartbeat timer to expire, on expiry work
> > > out the new interval based on when the last 'refresh' was done.
> >
> > Cool, I thought about this too. It would introduce some extra complexity
> > that is not really worth I think, specially because now we may be doing
> > more timer updates even with this patch but it's not triggering any wake
> > ups and we would need at least 2 wake ups then: one for the first
> > timeout event, and then re-schedule the timer for the next updated one,
> > and maybe again, and again.. less timer updates but more wake ups, one
> > at every heartbeat interval even on a busy transport. Seems it's cheaper
> > to just update the timer then.
>
> One wakeup per heartbeat interval on a busy connection is probably noise.
> Probably much less than the 1000s of timer updates that would otherwise happen.
I was thinking more on near-idle systems, as the overhead for this
refresh looked rather small now even for busy transports if compared to
other points, a worth trade-off for reducing wake ups, imho.
But then I checked tcp, and it does what you're suggesting.
I'll rework the patch. Thanks
> A further optimisation would be to restart the timer if more than (say) 80%
> of the way through the timeout period.
>
> Similarly the HEARTBEAT could be sent if the 2nd wakeup would be almost immediate.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-31 21:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-29 13:41 [PATCH] sctp: avoid refreshing heartbeat timer too often Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-03-30 9:37 ` David Laight
2016-03-30 12:13 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-03-31 11:16 ` David Laight
2016-03-31 21:25 ` 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' [this message]
2016-04-01 0:24 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
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=20160331212512.GJ3387@mrl.redhat.com \
--to=marcelo.leitner@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB$(echo .)COM \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver$(echo .)com \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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