Hi Jesper, thanks for your time…
On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:16 , Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:15:12 +0200 > Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jesper, >> >> >> On Aug 23, 2013, at 09:27 , Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:13:52 -0700 >>> Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi List, hi Jesper, >>>>> >>>>> So I tested 3.10.9-1 to assess the status of the HTB atm link layer >>>>> adjustments to see whether the recent changes resurrected this feature. >>>>> Unfortunately the htb_private link layer adjustments still is >>>>> broken (RRUL ping RTT against Toke's netperf host in Germany of ~80ms, >>>>> same >>>>> as without link layer adjustments). On the bright side the tc_stab method >>>>> still works as well as before (ping RTT around 40ms). >>>>> I would like to humbly propose to use the tc stab method in >>>>> cerowrt to perform ATM link layer adjustments as default. To repeat >>>>> myself, >>>>> simply telling the kernel a lie about the packet size seems more robust >>>>> than fudging HTB's rate tables. >>> >>> After the (regression) commit 56b765b79 ("htb: improved accuracy at >>> high rates"), the kernel no-longer uses the rate tables. >> >> See, I am quite a layman here, spelunking through the tc and kernel >> source code made me believe that the rate tables are still used (I might >> have looked at too old versions of both repositories though). >> >>> >>> My commit 8a8e3d84b1719 (net_sched: restore "linklayer atm" handling), >>> does the ATM cell overhead calculation directly on the packet length, >>> see psched_l2t_ns() doing (DIV_ROUND_UP(len,48)*53). >>> Thus, the cell calc should actually be more precise now.... but see below >> >> Is there any way to make HTB report which link layer it assumes? > > I added some print debug statements in my patch, so you can see this in > the kernel log / dmesg. Run activate the debugging print statments: > > mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug/ > echo "func __detect_linklayer +p" >> /sys/kernel/debug/dynamic_debug/control > > Run your tc script, and run dmesg, or look in kernel-syslog. Ah, unfortunately I am not setup to build new kernels for the router I am testing on, so I would hereby like to beg Dave to include that patch in one of the next releases. Would it not a good idea to teach tc to report the link layer for HTB as it does for stab? Having to empirically figure out whether it is applied or not is somewhat cumbersome... > > >>> >>>>> Especially since the kernel already fudges >>>>> the packet size to account for the ethernet header and then some, so this >>>>> path should receive more scrutiny by virtue of having more users? >>> >>> As you mention, the default kernel path (not tc stab) fudges the packet >>> size for Ethernet headers, AND I made a mistake (back in approx 2006, >>> sorry) that the "overhead" cannot be a negative number. >> >> Mmh, does this also apply to stab? > > This seems to be two question... > > Yes, the Ethernet header size gets adjusted/added before the "stab" > call. > For reference > See: net/core/dev.c function __dev_xmit_skb() > Call qdisc_pkt_len_init(skb); // adjust Ethernet and account for GSO > Call qdisc_calculate_pkt_len(skb, q); // is the stab call > (ps calls __qdisc_calculate_pkt_len() in net/sched/sch_api.c) > > The qdisc_pkt_len_init() call were introduced by Eric in > v3.9-rc1~139^2~411. So I look at 3.10 here: net/core/dev.c, qdisc_pkt_len_init line 2628: qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len = skb->len; and in line 2650: qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len += (gso_segs - 1) * hdr_len; so the adjusted size does not seem to end in skb->len and then in net/sched/sch_api.c, __qdisc_calculate_pkt_len line440: pkt_len = skb->len + stab->szopts.overhead; So to my eyes this looks like stab is not honoring the changes made in qdisc_pkt_len_init, no? At least I fail to see where skb->len is assigned qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len But I happily admit that I am truly a novice in these matters and easily intimidated by C code. > > Thus, in kernels >= 3.9, you would need to change/reduce your tc > "overhead" parameter with -14 bytes (iif you accounted encapsulated > Ethernet header before) That is what I thought before, but my kernel spelunking made me reconsider and switch to not subtract the 14 bytes since as I understand it the kernel actively does not do it if stab is used. > > The "overhead" of stab can be negative, so no problem here, in an "int" > for stab. > > >>> Meaning that >>> some ATM encap overheads simply cannot be configured correctly (as you >>> need to subtract the ethernet header). >> >> Yes, I see, luckily PPPoA and IPoA seem quite rare, and setting the >> overhead to be larger than it actually is is relatively benign, as it will >> overestimate packe size. >> >>> (And its quite problematic to >>> change the kABI to allow for a negative overhead) >> >> Again I have no clue but overhead seems to be integer, not unsigned, so >> why can it not be negative? > > Nope, for reference in include/uapi/linux/pkt_sched.h > > This struct tc_ratespec is used by the normal "HTB/TBF" rate system, > notice "unsigned short overhead". > > struct tc_ratespec { > unsigned char cell_log; > __u8 linklayer; /* lower 4 bits */ > unsigned short overhead; > short cell_align; > unsigned short mpu; > __u32 rate; > }; > > > This struct tc_sizespec is used by stab system, where the overhead is > an int. > > struct tc_sizespec { > unsigned char cell_log; > unsigned char size_log; > short cell_align; > int overhead; > unsigned int linklayer; > unsigned int mpu; > unsigned int mtu; > unsigned int tsize; > }; Ah, good to know. > > > > >>> >>> Perhaps we should change to use "tc stab" for this reason. But I'm not >>> sure "stab" does the right thing either, and its accuracy is also >>> limited as its actually also table based. >> >> But why should a table be problematic here? As long as we can assure >> the table is equal or larger to the largest packet we are golden. So either >> we do the manly and stupid thing and go for 9000 byte jumbo packets for the >> table size. Or we assume that for the most part ATM users will art best use >> baby jumbo frames (I think BT does this to allow payload MTU 1500 in spite >> of PPPoE encapsulation overhead) but than we are quite fine with the default >> size table maxMTU of 2048 bytes, no? > > > It is the GSO problem that I'm worried about. The kernel will bunch up > packets, and that caused the length calculation issue... just disable > GSO. > > ethtool -K eth63 gso off gro off tso off Oh, as always Dave has this tackled in cerowrt already, all offloads are off (at 16000Kbit/s 2500Kbit/s there should be no need for offloads nowadays I guess). But I see the issue now. > > >>> We could easily change the >>> kernel to perform the ATM cell overhead calc inside "stab", and we >>> should also fix the GSO packet overhead problem. >>> (for now remember to disable GSO packets when shaping) >> >> Yeah I stumbled over the fact that the stab mechanism does not honor >> the kernels earlier adjustments of packet length (but I seem to be unable to >> find the actual file and line where this initially is handeled). It would >> seem relatively easy to make stab take the earlier adjustment into account. >> Regarding GSO, I assumed that GSO will not play nicely with a AQM anyway as >> a single large packet will hog too much transfer time... >> > > Yes, just disable GSO ;-) Done. > > >>> >>>> It's my hope that the atm code works but is misconfigured. You can output >>>> the tc commands by overriding the TC variable with TC="echo tc" and paste >>>> here. >>> >>> I also hope is a misconfig. Please show us the config/script. >> >> Will do this later. I would be delighted if it is just me being stupid. >> >>> >>> I would appreciate a link to the scripts you are using... perhaps a git >>> tree? >> >> Unfortunately I have no git tree and no experience with git. I do not >> think I will be able to set something up quickly. But I use a modified >> version of cerowrt's AQM scripts which I will post later. >> > > Someone just point me to the cerowrt git repo... please, and point me > at simple.qos script. >
simple.qos
Description: Binary data
functions.sh
Description: Binary data
>
> Did you add the "linklayer atm" yourself to Dave's script?
Well, partly the option for HTB was already in his script but under
tested, I changed the script to add stab and to allow easier configuration of
overhead, mow, mtu and tsize (just for stab) from the guy, but the code is
Dave's. I attached the scripts. functions.sh gets the values from the
configuration GUI. I extended the way the linklayer option strings are created,
but basically it is the same method that dave used. And I do see the right
overhead values appear in "tc -d qdisc", so at least something is reaching HTB.
Sorry, that I have no repository for easier access.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>> Now, I have been testing this using Dave's most recent cerowrt
>>>>> alpha version with a 3.10.9 kernel on mips hardware, I think this kernel
>>>>> should contain all htb fixes including commit 8a8e3d84b17 (net_sched:
>>>>> restore "linklayer atm" handling) but am not fully sure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does.
>>>
>>> It have not hit the stable tree yet, but DaveM promised he would pass it
>>> along.
>>>
>>> It does seem Dave Taht have my patch applied:
>>> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/patches/3.10.9-1/685-net_sched-restore-linklayer-atm-handling.patch
>>
>> Ah, good so it should have worked.
>
> It should...
>
>
>>>
>>>>> While I am not able to build kernels, it seems that I am able to quickly
>>>>> test whether link layer adjustments work or not. SO aim happy to help
>>>>> where
>>>>> I can :)
>>>
>>> So, what is you setup lab, that allow you to test this quickly?
>>
>> Oh, Dave and Toke are the giants on whose shoulders I stand here
>> (thanks guys), all I bring to the table basically is the fact that I have an
>> ATM carried ADSL2+ connection at home.
>
> I will soon have a ADSL lab again, so I try and reproduce your results.
> Actually, almost while typing this email, the postman arrived at my
> house and delivered a new ADSL modem... as a local Danish ISP
> www.fullrate.dk have been so kind to give me a testline for free
> (thanks fullrate!).
This is great! Even though I am quite sure that no real DSL link is
actually required to test the effect of the link layer adjustments.
>
>
>> Anyway, my theory is that proper link layer adjustments should only
>> show up if not performing these would make my traffic exceed my link-speed
>> and hence accumulate in the DSL modems bloated buffers leading to measurable
>> increases in latency. So I try to saturate the both up- and down-link while
>> measuring latency und different conditions. SInce the worst case overhead of
>> the ATM encapsulation approaches 50% (with best case being around 10%) I try
>> to test the system while shaping to 95% percent of link rates where do
>> expect to see an effect of the link layer adjustments and while shaping to
>> 50% where do not expect to see an effect. And basically that seems to work.
>
>> Practically, I use Toke's netsurf-wrapper project with the RRUL test
>> from my cerowrt router behind an ADSL2+ modem to a close netperf server in
>> Germany. The link layer adjustments are configured in my cerowrt router,
>> using Dave's simple.qos script (3 band HTB shaper with fq_codel on each
>> leaf, taking my overhead of 40 bytes into account and optionally the link
>> layer).
>
>> It turns out that this test nicely saturates my link with 4 up
>> and 4 down TCP flows ad uses a train ping probes at 0.2 second period
>> to assess the latency induced by saturating the links. Now I shape down
>> to 95% and 50% of line rates and simply look at the ping RTT plot for
>> different conditions. In my rig I see around 30ms ping RTT without
>> load, 80ms with full saturation and no linklayer adjustments, and 40ms
>> with working link layer adjustments (hand in hand with slightly reduced
>> TCP good put just as one would expect). In my testing so far activating
>> the HTB link layer adjustments yielded the same 80ms delay I get
>> without link layer adjustments. If I shape down to 50% of link rates
>> HTB, stab and no link layer adjustments yield a ping RTT of ~40ms.
>> Still with proper link layer adjustments the TCP good-put is reduced
>> even at 50% shaping. As Dave explained with an unloaded swallow ermm,
>> ping RTT and fq_codel's target set to 5ms the best case would be 30ms +
>> 2*5ms or 40ms, so I am pretty close to ideal with proper link layer
>> adjustments.
>>
>
>> I guess it should be possible to simply use the reduction in good-put
>> as an easy indicator whether the link layer adjustments work or not. But to
>> do this properly I would need to be able to control the size of the sent
>> packets which I am not, at least not with RRUL. But I am quite sure real
>> computer scientists could easily set something up to test the good-put
>> through a shaping device at differently sized packet streams of the same
>> bandwidth, but I digress.
>>
>> On the other hand I do not claim to be an expert in this field in any
>> way and my measurement method might be flawed, if you think so please do not
>> hesitate to let me know how I could improve it.
>
> I have a hard time following your description... sorry.
Okay, I see, let me try to present the data in a more ordered fashion:
BW: bandwidth [Kbit/s]
LLAM = link-layer adjustment method
LL: link layer
GP: goodput [Kbit/s]
# shaped downBW (%) upBW (%) LLAM LL
ping RTT downGP upGP
1 no 16309 100 2544 100
none none 300ms 10000 1600
2 yes 14698 90 2430 95
none none 80ms 13600 1800
3 yes 14698 90 2430 95
stab adsl 40ms 11600 1600
4 yes 15494 95 2430 95
stab adsl 42ms 12400 1600
5 yes 14698 90 2430 95
htb adsl 75ms 13200 1600
2 yes 7349 45 1215 48
none none 45ms 6800 1000
4 yes 7349 45 1215 48
stab adsl 42ms 5800 800
5 yes 7349 45 1215 48
htb adsl 45ms 6600 1000
Notes: upGP is way noisier than downGP and therefore harder to estimate
So condition# 3 and 4 show the best latency at high link saturation where link
layer adjustments actually make a difference, by controlling whether the DSL
modem will buffer or not
At ~50% link saturation there is not much, if any effect of the link layer
adjustments on latency, but it still leaves its hallmark on good put reduction.
(The partial reduction for htb might be caused by the specification of 40 bytes
of overhead which seem to have been honored).
I take the disappearance of the latency effect at 50% as a control data point
that shows my measurement approach seems sane enough.
I hope this clears up the information I wanted to give you the first time
around.
>
> So, did you get a working-low-latency setup by using 95% shaping and
> "stab" linklayer adjustment?
Yes. (With a 3 leaf HTB as shaper and fq_codel as disc)
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
> Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
