On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 10:34:05AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> Following up on 725acd111ba3 ("tcp_splice: Set (again) TCP_NODELAY on
> both sides"), David argues that, in general, we don't know what kind
> of TCP traffic we're dealing with, on any side or path.
> 
> TCP segments might have been delivered to our socket with a PSH flag,
> but we don't have a way to know about it.
> 
> Similarly, the guest might send us segments with PSH or URG set, but
> we don't know if we should generally TCP_CORK sockets and uncork on
> those flags, because that would assume they're running a Linux kernel
> (and a particular version of it) matching the kernel that delivers
> outbound packets for us.
> 
> Given that we can't make any assumption and everything might very well
> be interactive traffic, disable Nagle's algorithm on all non-spliced
> sockets as well.
> 
> After all, John Nagle himself is nowadays recommending that delayed
> ACKs should never be enabled together with his algorithm, but we
> don't have a practical way to ensure that our environment is free from
> delayed ACKs (TCP_QUICKACK is not really usable for this purpose):
> 
>   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34180239
> 
> Suggested-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tcp.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c
> index 3b3193a..c570f42 100644
> --- a/tcp.c
> +++ b/tcp.c
> @@ -756,6 +756,19 @@ static void tcp_sock_set_bufsize(const struct ctx *c, int s)
>  		trace("TCP: failed to set SO_SNDBUF to %i", v);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * tcp_sock_set_nodelay() - Set TCP_NODELAY option (disable Nagle's algorithm)
> + * @s:		Socket, can be -1 to avoid check in the caller
> + */
> +static void tcp_sock_set_nodelay(int s)
> +{
> +	if (s == -1)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (setsockopt(s, SOL_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, &((int){ 1 }), sizeof(int)))
> +		trace("TCP: failed to set TCP_NODELAY on socket %i", s);

I think this deserves something a little stronger than trace().  It
might have a significant impact on latency, and if we get a failure
enabling a feature that's been in TCP longer than Linux has existed,
something pretty weird is going on.

> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * tcp_update_csum() - Calculate TCP checksum
>   * @psum:	Unfolded partial checksum of the IPv4 or IPv6 pseudo-header
> @@ -1285,6 +1298,7 @@ static int tcp_conn_new_sock(const struct ctx *c, sa_family_t af)
>  		return -errno;
>  
>  	tcp_sock_set_bufsize(c, s);
> +	tcp_sock_set_nodelay(s);
>  
>  	return s;
>  }
> @@ -2261,6 +2275,8 @@ static int tcp_sock_init_one(const struct ctx *c, const union inany_addr *addr,
>  		return s;
>  
>  	tcp_sock_set_bufsize(c, s);
> +	tcp_sock_set_nodelay(s);
> +

This is a listening socket, not an accepted or connecting socket.
Does NODELAY even mean anything there?

>  	return s;
>  }
>  
> @@ -2322,6 +2338,8 @@ static void tcp_ns_sock_init4(const struct ctx *c, in_port_t port)
>  	else
>  		s = -1;
>  
> +	tcp_sock_set_nodelay(s);

Same here.

>  	if (c->tcp.fwd_out.mode == FWD_AUTO)
>  		tcp_sock_ns[port][V4] = s;
>  }
> @@ -2348,6 +2366,8 @@ static void tcp_ns_sock_init6(const struct ctx *c, in_port_t port)
>  	else
>  		s = -1;
>  
> +	tcp_sock_set_nodelay(s);

And here.

>  	if (c->tcp.fwd_out.mode == FWD_AUTO)
>  		tcp_sock_ns[port][V6] = s;
>  }

Do accept()ed sockets inherit NODELAY from the listening socket?  Or
should we instead be setting NODELAY after the accept4() in
tcp_listen_handler()?  In fact.. even if they do inhereit, would it be
simpler to just set it at accept() time?

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson