From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Always send an ACK segment once the handshake is completed
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:54:11 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZREgg5kFIazRFgDs@zatzit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230922220637.59045-1-sbrivio@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3312 bytes --]
On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 12:06:37AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> The reporter is running a SMTP server behind pasta, and the client
> waits for the server's banner before sending any data. In turn, the
> server waits for our ACK after sending SYN,ACK, which never comes.
>
> If we use the ACK_IF_NEEDED indication to tcp_send_flag(), given that
> there's no pending data, we delay sending the ACK segment at the end
> of the three-way handshake until we have some data to send to the
> server.
>
> This was actually intended, as I thought we would lower the latency
> for new connections, but we can't assume that the client will start
> sending data first (SMTP is the typical example where this doesn't
> happen).
>
> And, trying out this patch with SSH (where the client starts sending
> data first), the reporter actually noticed we have a lower latency
> by forcing an ACK right away. Comparing a capture before the patch:
>
> 13:07:14.007704 IP 10.1.2.1.42056 > 10.1.2.140.1234: Flags [S], seq 1797034836, win 65535, options [mss 4096,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> 13:07:14.007769 IP 10.1.2.140.1234 > 10.1.2.1.42056: Flags [S.], seq 2297052481, ack 1797034837, win 65480, options [mss 65480,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> 13:07:14.008462 IP 10.1.2.1.42056 > 10.1.2.140.1234: Flags [.], seq 1:22, ack 1, win 65535, length 21
> 13:07:14.008496 IP 10.1.2.140.1234 > 10.1.2.1.42056: Flags [.], ack 22, win 512, length 0
> 13:07:14.011799 IP 10.1.2.140.1234 > 10.1.2.1.42056: Flags [P.], seq 1:515, ack 22, win 512, length 514
>
> and after:
>
> 13:10:26.165364 IP 10.1.2.1.59508 > 10.1.2.140.1234: Flags [S], seq 4165939595, win 65535, options [mss 4096,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> 13:10:26.165391 IP 10.1.2.140.1234 > 10.1.2.1.59508: Flags [S.], seq 985607380, ack 4165939596, win 65480, options [mss 65480,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> 13:10:26.165418 IP 10.1.2.1.59508 > 10.1.2.140.1234: Flags [.], ack 1, win 512, length 0
> 13:10:26.165683 IP 10.1.2.1.59508 > 10.1.2.140.1234: Flags [.], seq 1:22, ack 1, win 512, length 21
> 13:10:26.165698 IP 10.1.2.140.1234 > 10.1.2.1.59508: Flags [.], ack 22, win 512, length 0
> 13:10:26.167107 IP 10.1.2.140.1234 > 10.1.2.1.59508: Flags [P.], seq 1:515, ack 22, win 512, length 514
>
> the latency between the initial SYN segment and the first data
> transmission actually decreases from 792µs to 334µs. This is not
> statistically relevant as we have a single measurement, but it can't
> be that bad, either.
>
> Reported-by: cr3bs (from IRC)
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
> tcp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c
> index 76b7b8d..39844eb 100644
> --- a/tcp.c
> +++ b/tcp.c
> @@ -2562,7 +2562,7 @@ static void tcp_conn_from_sock_finish(struct ctx *c, struct tcp_tap_conn *conn,
> * dequeue waiting for SYN,ACK from tap -- check now.
> */
> tcp_data_from_sock(c, conn);
> - tcp_send_flag(c, conn, ACK_IF_NEEDED);
> + tcp_send_flag(c, conn, ACK);
> }
>
> /**
--
David Gibson | 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
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-25 6:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-22 22:06 [PATCH] tcp: Always send an ACK segment once the handshake is completed Stefano Brivio
2023-09-25 5:54 ` David Gibson [this message]
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=ZREgg5kFIazRFgDs@zatzit \
--to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
--cc=sbrivio@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://passt.top/passt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for IMAP folder(s).