On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Xin Long
>>> Sent: 03 March 2017 15:43
>> ...
>>> > It is much more important to get MSG_MORE working 'properly' for SCTP
>>> > than for TCP. For TCP an application can always use a long send.
>>
>>> "long send" ?, you mean bigger data, or keeping sending?
>>> I didn't get the difference between SCTP and TCP, they
>>> are similar when sending data.
>>
>> With tcp an application can always replace two send()/write()
>> calls with a single call to writev().
>> For sctp two send() calls must be made in order to generate two
>> data chunks.
>> So it is much easier for a tcp application to generate 'full'
>> ethernet packets.
> okay, it should not be a important reason, and sctp might also support
> it one day. :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> >> @@ -1982,6 +1982,7 @@ static int sctp_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t msg_len)
>>> >> * breaks.
>>> >> */
>>> >> err = sctp_primitive_SEND(net, asoc, datamsg);
>>> >> + asoc->force_delay = 0;
>>> >> /* Did the lower layer accept the chunk? */
>>> >> if (err) {
>>> >> sctp_datamsg_free(datamsg);
>>> >
>>> > I don't think this is right - or needed.
>>> > You only get to the above if some test has decided to send data chunks.
>>> > So it just means that the NEXT time someone tries to send data all the
>>> > queued data gets sent.
>>
>>> the NEXT time someone tries to send data with "MSG_MORE clear",
>>> yes, but with "MSG_MORE set", it will still delay.
>>>
>>> > I'm guessing that the whole thing gets called in a loop (definitely needed
>>> > for very long data chunks, or after the window is opened).
>>
>>> yes, if users keep sending data chunks with MSG_MORE set, no
>>> data with "MSG_MORE clear" gap.
>>>
>>> > Now if an application sends a lot of (say) 100 byte chunks with MSG_MORE
>>> > set it would expect to see a lot of full ethernet frames be sent.
>>
>>> right.
>>
>>> > With the above a frame will be sent (containing all but 1 chunk) when the
>>> > amount of queued data becomes too large for an ethernet frame, and immediately
>>> > followed by a second ethernet frame with 1 chunk in it.
>>
>>> "followed by a second ethernet frame with 1 chunk in it.", I think this's
>>> what you're really worried about, right ?
>>> But sctp flush data queue NOT like what you think, it's not keep traversing
>>> the queue untill the queue is empty.
>>> once a packet with chunks in one ethernet frame is sent, sctp_outq_flush
>>> will return. it will pack chunks and send the next packet again untill some
>>> other 'event' triggers it, like retransmission or data received from peer.
>>> I don't think this is a problem.
>>
>> Erm.... that can't work.
>> I think there is code to convert a large user send into multiple data chunks.
>> So if the user does a 4k (say) send several large chunks get queued.
>> These would need to all be sent at once.
>>
>> Similarly when the transmit window is received.
>> So somewhere there ought to be a loop that will send more than one packet.
> As far as I can see, no loop like you said, mostly, the incoming
> chunk (like SACK) from peer will trigger the next flush out.
> I can try to trace the path in kernel for sure tomorrow.
okay, you are right, I missed sctp_packet_transmit_chunk also call
sctp_packet_transmit to send the current packet. :)
But if we keep sending data with "MSG_MORE", after one ethernet frame
is sent, "followed by a second ethernet frame with 1 chunk in it" will NOT
happen, as in this loop the asoc's msg_more flag is still set, and this flush
is called by sctp_sendmsg(the function msg_more should care more).
did I miss something ?
>
>>
>>> > Now it might be that the flag needs clearing when retransmissions are queued.
>>> > OTOH they might get sent for other reasons.
>>
>>> Before we really overthought about MSG_MORE, no need to care about
>>> retransmissions, define MSG_MORE, in my opinion, it works more for
>>> *inflight is 0*, if it's not 0, we shouldn't stop other places flushing them.
>>
>> Eh? and when nagle disabled.
>> If 'inflight' isn't 0 then most paths don't flush data.
> I knew, but MSG_MORE is different thing, it should only try to work for the
> current and following data.
>
>>
>>> We cannot let asoc's more_more flag work as global, it will block elsewhere
>>> sending data chunks, not only sctp_sendmsg.
>>
>> If the connection was flow controlled off, and more 'credit' arrives and there
>> is less that an ethernet frame's worth of data pending, and the last send
>> said 'MSG_MORE' there is no point sending anything until the application
>> does a send with MSG_MORE clear.
> got you, I think you have different understanding about MSG_MORE
> while this patch just try to make it work like TCP's msg_more, but what
> you mentioned here is the same as TCP thing, seems you also want
> to improve TCP's MSG_MORE :-)
>
>>
>> I'm not sure what causes a retransmission to send data, I suspect that 'inflight'
>> can easily be non-zero at that time.
> The thing that causes a retransmission to send data is that both tx and
> rtx send data through sctp_outq_flush, in which it will try to send rtx queue,
> then rx queue.
>
> yes, once a packet is sent out and not yet be SACKed, "inflight" will not be
> zero, so when retransmiting, "inflight" must be non-zero.
>
>> Likely something causes a packet be generated - which then collects the data chunks.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
