Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200602080425.93712-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iLNCDuXAhj4By0PDKbuFvneVfwmwkLbRCEKLBF+pmNEPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL+tcoBjjwrkE5QbXDFADRGJfPoniLL1rMFNUkAKBN9L57UGHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89iKDKnnW1na_F0ngGh3EEc0quuBB2XWo21oAKaHckdPK4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL+tcoDn_=T--uB0CRymfTGvD022PPDk5Yw2yCxvqOOpZ4G_dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+dPu9=qJowhRVm9d3CesY4p+zzJ0HGiCMc_yJxux6pow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL+tcoC2+vYoFbujkLCF7P3evfirNSBQtJ9bPFHiU2FGOnBo+A@mail.gmail.com> <CANn89iJfLM2Hz69d9qOZoRKwzzCCpgVRZ1zbTTbg4vGvSAEZ-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJfLM2Hz69d9qOZoRKwzzCCpgVRZ1zbTTbg4vGvSAEZ-w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 08:02:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CADVnQy=RJfmzHR15DyWdydFAqSqVmFhaW4_cgYYAgnixEa5DNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: fix TCP socks unreleased in BBR mode
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, liweishi@kuaishou.com,
        Shujin Li <lishujin@kuaishou.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
> > be better as following:
> > 1) discard the tcp_internal_pacing() function.
> > 2) remove where the tcp_internal_pacing() is called in the
> > __tcp_transmit_skb() function.
> >
> > If we do so, we could avoid 'too late to give up pacing'. Meanwhile,
> > should we introduce the tcp_wstamp_ns socket field as commit
> > (864e5c090749) does?
> >
>
> Please do not top-post on netdev mailing list.
>
>
> I basically suggested double-checking which point in TCP could end up
> calling tcp_internal_pacing()
> while the timer was already armed.
>
> I guess this is mtu probing.

Perhaps this could also happen from some of the retransmission code
paths that don't use tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue()? Perhaps
tcp_retransmit_timer() (RTO) and  tcp_send_loss_probe() TLP? It seems
they could indirectly cause a call to __tcp_transmit_skb() and thus
tcp_internal_pacing() without first checking if the pacing timer was
already armed?

neal