Re: [PATCH] tcp: ack when we get an OOO/lost packet

[Josef Bacik]

On 08/13/2015 01:13 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On 13.08.2015 16:59, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On 08/13/2015 04:19 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Josef Bacik <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > While adding tcp window scaling support I was finding that I'd get
> > > > some packet
> > > > loss or reordering when transferring from large distances and grub
> > > > would just
> > > > timeout.  This is because we weren't ack'ing when we got our OOO
> > > > packet, so the
> > > > sender didn't know it needed to retransmit anything, so eventually it
> > > > would fill
> > > > the window and stop transmitting, and we'd time out.  Fix this by
> > > > ACK'ing when
> > > > we don't find our next sequence numbered packet.  With this fix I no
> > > > longer time
> > > > out.  Thanks,
> > >
> > > I have a feeling that your description is misleading. Patch simply
> > > sends duplicated ACK, but partner does not know what has been received
> > > and what has not, so it must wait for ACK timeout anyway before
> > > retransmitting. What this patch may fix would be lost ACK packet
> > > *from* GRUB, by increasing rate of ACK packets it sends. Do you have
> > > packet trace for timeout case, ideally from both sides simultaneously?
> >
> > The way linux works is that if you get <configurable amount> of DUP
> > ack's it triggers a retransmit.
>
> Do you have pointers to documentation and code?

The tcp_reordering systctl allows you to set how many DUP acks you get 
before retransmitting, you can see the comment above the function 
tcp_time_to_recover in the kernel.  With no SACK support we rely on 
getting a certain number of DUP ACKs before retransmitting, as we could 
get the out of order packets we want in time and not have to retransmit.

> >                                I only have traces from the server
> > since tcpdump doesn't work in grub (or if it does I don't know how to do
> > it).
>
> GRUB does not have tcpdump, but your switch quite likely has port
> mirroring.

Big comapny, big datacenters etc, etc.  I'm a file system developer, you 
are lucky I know how to spell tcpdump to begin with ;).  The tcpdump on 
the server side supports my hypothesis, we send lots and lots of stuff, 
the grub box starts falling behind in it's ACK responses because it's 
waiting for the next SEQ packet to come in, it ACK's when it does 
finally come in with the new next expected SEQ, and this degrades to the 
point where the sender has maxed out its send window and the grub box 
either has lost or has yet to receive the next packet it is waiting for 
and times out.  I can say for sure that we aren't getting the next 
packet we are looking for while getting a bunch of others just from my 
instrumentation on the grub side, I _can't_ say for sure if it is just 
simple re-ordering or packet loss somewhere.  With this patch we're 
definitely getting all of the DUP ACK's, at least there doesn't appear 
to be any missing in the range (like I see DUP ACK #1-#300 all in a row, 
not missing anybody.)

If you want I can change the commit log to say something like

"If we get an out of order packet we still need to ACK with the expected 
SEQ number so the sender knows we haven't received that packet yet and 
may need a retransmission."

To clear up any ambiguity.  Thanks,

Josef