2017-11-01 14:08:43 +00:00
|
|
|
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
#ifndef _UAPI_INET_DIAG_H_
|
|
|
|
|
#define _UAPI_INET_DIAG_H_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/types.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Just some random number */
|
|
|
|
|
#define TCPDIAG_GETSOCK 18
|
|
|
|
|
#define DCCPDIAG_GETSOCK 19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define INET_DIAG_GETSOCK_MAX 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Socket identity */
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_sockid {
|
|
|
|
|
__be16 idiag_sport;
|
|
|
|
|
__be16 idiag_dport;
|
|
|
|
|
__be32 idiag_src[4];
|
|
|
|
|
__be32 idiag_dst[4];
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_if;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_cookie[2];
|
|
|
|
|
#define INET_DIAG_NOCOOKIE (~0U)
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Request structure */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_req {
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_family; /* Family of addresses. */
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_src_len;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_dst_len;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_ext; /* Query extended information */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_sockid id;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_states; /* States to dump */
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_dbs; /* Tables to dump (NI) */
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_req_v2 {
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 sdiag_family;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 sdiag_protocol;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_ext;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 pad;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_states;
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_sockid id;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-10-21 10:03:44 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* SOCK_RAW sockets require the underlied protocol to be
|
|
|
|
|
* additionally specified so we can use @pad member for
|
|
|
|
|
* this, but we can't rename it because userspace programs
|
|
|
|
|
* still may depend on this name. Instead lets use another
|
|
|
|
|
* structure definition as an alias for struct
|
|
|
|
|
* @inet_diag_req_v2.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_req_raw {
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 sdiag_family;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 sdiag_protocol;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_ext;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 sdiag_raw_protocol;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_states;
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_sockid id;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
enum {
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_REQ_NONE,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_REQ_BYTECODE,
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define INET_DIAG_REQ_MAX INET_DIAG_REQ_BYTECODE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Bytecode is sequence of 4 byte commands followed by variable arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
* All the commands identified by "code" are conditional jumps forward:
|
|
|
|
|
* to offset cc+"yes" or to offset cc+"no". "yes" is supposed to be
|
|
|
|
|
* length of the command and its arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_bc_op {
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned char code;
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned char yes;
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned short no;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
enum {
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_NOP,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_JMP,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_S_GE,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_S_LE,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_D_GE,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_D_LE,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_AUTO,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_S_COND,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_D_COND,
|
2016-06-24 01:42:51 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_DEV_COND, /* u32 ifindex */
|
2016-08-24 06:46:26 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_MARK_COND,
|
2017-12-27 17:27:58 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_S_EQ,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BC_D_EQ,
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_hostcond {
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 family;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 prefix_len;
|
|
|
|
|
int port;
|
|
|
|
|
__be32 addr[0];
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-24 06:46:26 +00:00
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_markcond {
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 mark;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 mask;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
/* Base info structure. It contains socket identity (addrs/ports/cookie)
|
|
|
|
|
* and, alas, the information shown by netstat. */
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_msg {
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_family;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_state;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_timer;
|
|
|
|
|
__u8 idiag_retrans;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_sockid id;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_expires;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_rqueue;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_wqueue;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_uid;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_inode;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Extensions */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
enum {
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_NONE,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_MEMINFO,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_INFO,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_VEGASINFO,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_CONG,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_TOS,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_TCLASS,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_SKMEMINFO,
|
2012-10-23 18:29:56 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_SHUTDOWN,
|
net: tcp: add DCTCP congestion control algorithm
This work adds the DataCenter TCP (DCTCP) congestion control
algorithm [1], which has been first published at SIGCOMM 2010 [2],
resp. follow-up analysis at SIGMETRICS 2011 [3] (and also, more
recently as an informational IETF draft available at [4]).
DCTCP is an enhancement to the TCP congestion control algorithm for
data center networks. Typical data center workloads are i.e.
i) partition/aggregate (queries; bursty, delay sensitive), ii) short
messages e.g. 50KB-1MB (for coordination and control state; delay
sensitive), and iii) large flows e.g. 1MB-100MB (data update;
throughput sensitive). DCTCP has therefore been designed for such
environments to provide/achieve the following three requirements:
* High burst tolerance (incast due to partition/aggregate)
* Low latency (short flows, queries)
* High throughput (continuous data updates, large file
transfers) with commodity, shallow buffered switches
The basic idea of its design consists of two fundamentals: i) on the
switch side, packets are being marked when its internal queue
length > threshold K (K is chosen so that a large enough headroom
for marked traffic is still available in the switch queue); ii) the
sender/host side maintains a moving average of the fraction of marked
packets, so each RTT, F is being updated as follows:
F := X / Y, where X is # of marked ACKs, Y is total # of ACKs
alpha := (1 - g) * alpha + g * F, where g is a smoothing constant
The resulting alpha (iow: probability that switch queue is congested)
is then being used in order to adaptively decrease the congestion
window W:
W := (1 - (alpha / 2)) * W
The means for receiving marked packets resp. marking them on switch
side in DCTCP is the use of ECN.
RFC3168 describes a mechanism for using Explicit Congestion Notification
from the switch for early detection of congestion, rather than waiting
for segment loss to occur.
However, this method only detects the presence of congestion, not
the *extent*. In the presence of mild congestion, it reduces the TCP
congestion window too aggressively and unnecessarily affects the
throughput of long flows [4].
DCTCP, as mentioned, enhances Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
processing to estimate the fraction of bytes that encounter congestion,
rather than simply detecting that some congestion has occurred. DCTCP
then scales the TCP congestion window based on this estimate [4],
thus it can derive multibit feedback from the information present in
the single-bit sequence of marks in its control law. And thus act in
*proportion* to the extent of congestion, not its *presence*.
Switches therefore set the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint in
packets when internal queue lengths exceed threshold K. Resulting,
DCTCP delivers the same or better throughput than normal TCP, while
using 90% less buffer space.
It was found in [2] that DCTCP enables the applications to handle 10x
the current background traffic, without impacting foreground traffic.
Moreover, a 10x increase in foreground traffic did not cause any
timeouts, and thus largely eliminates TCP incast collapse problems.
The algorithm itself has already seen deployments in large production
data centers since then.
We did a long-term stress-test and analysis in a data center, short
summary of our TCP incast tests with iperf compared to cubic:
This test measured DCTCP throughput and latency and compared it with
CUBIC throughput and latency for an incast scenario. In this test, 19
senders sent at maximum rate to a single receiver. The receiver simply
ran iperf -s.
The senders ran iperf -c <receiver> -t 30. All senders started
simultaneously (using local clocks synchronized by ntp).
This test was repeated multiple times. Below shows the results from a
single test. Other tests are similar. (DCTCP results were extremely
consistent, CUBIC results show some variance induced by the TCP timeouts
that CUBIC encountered.)
For this test, we report statistics on the number of TCP timeouts,
flow throughput, and traffic latency.
1) Timeouts (total over all flows, and per flow summaries):
CUBIC DCTCP
Total 3227 25
Mean 169.842 1.316
Median 183 1
Max 207 5
Min 123 0
Stddev 28.991 1.600
Timeout data is taken by measuring the net change in netstat -s
"other TCP timeouts" reported. As a result, the timeout measurements
above are not restricted to the test traffic, and we believe that it
is likely that all of the "DCTCP timeouts" are actually timeouts for
non-test traffic. We report them nevertheless. CUBIC will also include
some non-test timeouts, but they are drawfed by bona fide test traffic
timeouts for CUBIC. Clearly DCTCP does an excellent job of preventing
TCP timeouts. DCTCP reduces timeouts by at least two orders of
magnitude and may well have eliminated them in this scenario.
2) Throughput (per flow in Mbps):
CUBIC DCTCP
Mean 521.684 521.895
Median 464 523
Max 776 527
Min 403 519
Stddev 105.891 2.601
Fairness 0.962 0.999
Throughput data was simply the average throughput for each flow
reported by iperf. By avoiding TCP timeouts, DCTCP is able to
achieve much better per-flow results. In CUBIC, many flows
experience TCP timeouts which makes flow throughput unpredictable and
unfair. DCTCP, on the other hand, provides very clean predictable
throughput without incurring TCP timeouts. Thus, the standard deviation
of CUBIC throughput is dramatically higher than the standard deviation
of DCTCP throughput.
Mean throughput is nearly identical because even though cubic flows
suffer TCP timeouts, other flows will step in and fill the unused
bandwidth. Note that this test is something of a best case scenario
for incast under CUBIC: it allows other flows to fill in for flows
experiencing a timeout. Under situations where the receiver is issuing
requests and then waiting for all flows to complete, flows cannot fill
in for timed out flows and throughput will drop dramatically.
3) Latency (in ms):
CUBIC DCTCP
Mean 4.0088 0.04219
Median 4.055 0.0395
Max 4.2 0.085
Min 3.32 0.028
Stddev 0.1666 0.01064
Latency for each protocol was computed by running "ping -i 0.2
<receiver>" from a single sender to the receiver during the incast
test. For DCTCP, "ping -Q 0x6 -i 0.2 <receiver>" was used to ensure
that traffic traversed the DCTCP queue and was not dropped when the
queue size was greater than the marking threshold. The summary
statistics above are over all ping metrics measured between the single
sender, receiver pair.
The latency results for this test show a dramatic difference between
CUBIC and DCTCP. CUBIC intentionally overflows the switch buffer
which incurs the maximum queue latency (more buffer memory will lead
to high latency.) DCTCP, on the other hand, deliberately attempts to
keep queue occupancy low. The result is a two orders of magnitude
reduction of latency with DCTCP - even with a switch with relatively
little RAM. Switches with larger amounts of RAM will incur increasing
amounts of latency for CUBIC, but not for DCTCP.
4) Convergence and stability test:
This test measured the time that DCTCP took to fairly redistribute
bandwidth when a new flow commences. It also measured DCTCP's ability
to remain stable at a fair bandwidth distribution. DCTCP is compared
with CUBIC for this test.
At the commencement of this test, a single flow is sending at maximum
rate (near 10 Gbps) to a single receiver. One second after that first
flow commences, a new flow from a distinct server begins sending to
the same receiver as the first flow. After the second flow has sent
data for 10 seconds, the second flow is terminated. The first flow
sends for an additional second. Ideally, the bandwidth would be evenly
shared as soon as the second flow starts, and recover as soon as it
stops.
The results of this test are shown below. Note that the flow bandwidth
for the two flows was measured near the same time, but not
simultaneously.
DCTCP performs nearly perfectly within the measurement limitations
of this test: bandwidth is quickly distributed fairly between the two
flows, remains stable throughout the duration of the test, and
recovers quickly. CUBIC, in contrast, is slow to divide the bandwidth
fairly, and has trouble remaining stable.
CUBIC DCTCP
Seconds Flow 1 Flow 2 Seconds Flow 1 Flow 2
0 9.93 0 0 9.92 0
0.5 9.87 0 0.5 9.86 0
1 8.73 2.25 1 6.46 4.88
1.5 7.29 2.8 1.5 4.9 4.99
2 6.96 3.1 2 4.92 4.94
2.5 6.67 3.34 2.5 4.93 5
3 6.39 3.57 3 4.92 4.99
3.5 6.24 3.75 3.5 4.94 4.74
4 6 3.94 4 5.34 4.71
4.5 5.88 4.09 4.5 4.99 4.97
5 5.27 4.98 5 4.83 5.01
5.5 4.93 5.04 5.5 4.89 4.99
6 4.9 4.99 6 4.92 5.04
6.5 4.93 5.1 6.5 4.91 4.97
7 4.28 5.8 7 4.97 4.97
7.5 4.62 4.91 7.5 4.99 4.82
8 5.05 4.45 8 5.16 4.76
8.5 5.93 4.09 8.5 4.94 4.98
9 5.73 4.2 9 4.92 5.02
9.5 5.62 4.32 9.5 4.87 5.03
10 6.12 3.2 10 4.91 5.01
10.5 6.91 3.11 10.5 4.87 5.04
11 8.48 0 11 8.49 4.94
11.5 9.87 0 11.5 9.9 0
SYN/ACK ECT test:
This test demonstrates the importance of ECT on SYN and SYN-ACK packets
by measuring the connection probability in the presence of competing
flows for a DCTCP connection attempt *without* ECT in the SYN packet.
The test was repeated five times for each number of competing flows.
Competing Flows 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16
------------------------------
Mean Connection Probability 1 | 0.67 | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0
Median Connection Probability 1 | 0.65 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0
As the number of competing flows moves beyond 1, the connection
probability drops rapidly.
Enabling DCTCP with this patch requires the following steps:
DCTCP must be running both on the sender and receiver side in your
data center, i.e.:
sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=dctcp
Also, ECN functionality must be enabled on all switches in your
data center for DCTCP to work. The default ECN marking threshold (K)
heuristic on the switch for DCTCP is e.g., 20 packets (30KB) at
1Gbps, and 65 packets (~100KB) at 10Gbps (K > 1/7 * C * RTT, [4]).
In above tests, for each switch port, traffic was segregated into two
queues. For any packet with a DSCP of 0x01 - or equivalently a TOS of
0x04 - the packet was placed into the DCTCP queue. All other packets
were placed into the default drop-tail queue. For the DCTCP queue,
RED/ECN marking was enabled, here, with a marking threshold of 75 KB.
More details however, we refer you to the paper [2] under section 3).
There are no code changes required to applications running in user
space. DCTCP has been implemented in full *isolation* of the rest of
the TCP code as its own congestion control module, so that it can run
without a need to expose code to the core of the TCP stack, and thus
nothing changes for non-DCTCP users.
Changes in the CA framework code are minimal, and DCTCP algorithm
operates on mechanisms that are already available in most Silicon.
The gain (dctcp_shift_g) is currently a fixed constant (1/16) from
the paper, but we leave the option that it can be chosen carefully
to a different value by the user.
In case DCTCP is being used and ECN support on peer site is off,
DCTCP falls back after 3WHS to operate in normal TCP Reno mode.
ss {-4,-6} -t -i diag interface:
... dctcp wscale:7,7 rto:203 rtt:2.349/0.026 mss:1448 cwnd:2054
ssthresh:1102 ce_state 0 alpha 15 ab_ecn 0 ab_tot 735584
send 10129.2Mbps pacing_rate 20254.1Mbps unacked:1822 retrans:0/15
reordering:101 rcv_space:29200
... dctcp-reno wscale:7,7 rto:201 rtt:0.711/1.327 ato:40 mss:1448
cwnd:10 ssthresh:1102 fallback_mode send 162.9Mbps pacing_rate
325.5Mbps rcv_rtt:1.5 rcv_space:29200
More information about DCTCP can be found in [1-4].
[1] http://simula.stanford.edu/~alizade/Site/DCTCP.html
[2] http://simula.stanford.edu/~alizade/Site/DCTCP_files/dctcp-final.pdf
[3] http://simula.stanford.edu/~alizade/Site/DCTCP_files/dctcp_analysis-full.pdf
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-00
Joint work with Florian Westphal and Glenn Judd.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: Glenn Judd <glenn.judd@morganstanley.com>
Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2014-09-26 20:37:36 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_DCTCPINFO,
|
2015-06-15 15:26:20 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_PROTOCOL, /* response attribute only */
|
2015-06-24 09:02:51 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_SKV6ONLY,
|
2016-04-14 07:35:33 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_LOCALS,
|
|
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_PEERS,
|
2016-04-26 08:06:14 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_PAD,
|
2016-09-07 15:42:25 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_MARK,
|
tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control
This commit implements a new TCP congestion control algorithm: BBR
(Bottleneck Bandwidth and RTT). A detailed description of BBR will be
published in ACM Queue, Vol. 14 No. 5, September-October 2016, as
"BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control".
BBR has significantly increased throughput and reduced latency for
connections on Google's internal backbone networks and google.com and
YouTube Web servers.
BBR requires only changes on the sender side, not in the network or
the receiver side. Thus it can be incrementally deployed on today's
Internet, or in datacenters.
The Internet has predominantly used loss-based congestion control
(largely Reno or CUBIC) since the 1980s, relying on packet loss as the
signal to slow down. While this worked well for many years, loss-based
congestion control is unfortunately out-dated in today's networks. On
today's Internet, loss-based congestion control causes the infamous
bufferbloat problem, often causing seconds of needless queuing delay,
since it fills the bloated buffers in many last-mile links. On today's
high-speed long-haul links using commodity switches with shallow
buffers, loss-based congestion control has abysmal throughput because
it over-reacts to losses caused by transient traffic bursts.
In 1981 Kleinrock and Gale showed that the optimal operating point for
a network maximizes delivered bandwidth while minimizing delay and
loss, not only for single connections but for the network as a
whole. Finding that optimal operating point has been elusive, since
any single network measurement is ambiguous: network measurements are
the result of both bandwidth and propagation delay, and those two
cannot be measured simultaneously.
While it is impossible to disambiguate any single bandwidth or RTT
measurement, a connection's behavior over time tells a clearer
story. BBR uses a measurement strategy designed to resolve this
ambiguity. It combines these measurements with a robust servo loop
using recent control systems advances to implement a distributed
congestion control algorithm that reacts to actual congestion, not
packet loss or transient queue delay, and is designed to converge with
high probability to a point near the optimal operating point.
In a nutshell, BBR creates an explicit model of the network pipe by
sequentially probing the bottleneck bandwidth and RTT. On the arrival
of each ACK, BBR derives the current delivery rate of the last round
trip, and feeds it through a windowed max-filter to estimate the
bottleneck bandwidth. Conversely it uses a windowed min-filter to
estimate the round trip propagation delay. The max-filtered bandwidth
and min-filtered RTT estimates form BBR's model of the network pipe.
Using its model, BBR sets control parameters to govern sending
behavior. The primary control is the pacing rate: BBR applies a gain
multiplier to transmit faster or slower than the observed bottleneck
bandwidth. The conventional congestion window (cwnd) is now the
secondary control; the cwnd is set to a small multiple of the
estimated BDP (bandwidth-delay product) in order to allow full
utilization and bandwidth probing while bounding the potential amount
of queue at the bottleneck.
When a BBR connection starts, it enters STARTUP mode and applies a
high gain to perform an exponential search to quickly probe the
bottleneck bandwidth (doubling its sending rate each round trip, like
slow start). However, instead of continuing until it fills up the
buffer (i.e. a loss), or until delay or ACK spacing reaches some
threshold (like Hystart), it uses its model of the pipe to estimate
when that pipe is full: it estimates the pipe is full when it notices
the estimated bandwidth has stopped growing. At that point it exits
STARTUP and enters DRAIN mode, where it reduces its pacing rate to
drain the queue it estimates it has created.
Then BBR enters steady state. In steady state, PROBE_BW mode cycles
between first pacing faster to probe for more bandwidth, then pacing
slower to drain any queue that created if no more bandwidth was
available, and then cruising at the estimated bandwidth to utilize the
pipe without creating excess queue. Occasionally, on an as-needed
basis, it sends significantly slower to probe for RTT (PROBE_RTT
mode).
BBR has been fully deployed on Google's wide-area backbone networks
and we're experimenting with BBR on Google.com and YouTube on a global
scale. Replacing CUBIC with BBR has resulted in significant
improvements in network latency and application (RPC, browser, and
video) metrics. For more details please refer to our upcoming ACM
Queue publication.
Example performance results, to illustrate the difference between BBR
and CUBIC:
Resilience to random loss (e.g. from shallow buffers):
Consider a netperf TCP_STREAM test lasting 30 secs on an emulated
path with a 10Gbps bottleneck, 100ms RTT, and 1% packet loss
rate. CUBIC gets 3.27 Mbps, and BBR gets 9150 Mbps (2798x higher).
Low latency with the bloated buffers common in today's last-mile links:
Consider a netperf TCP_STREAM test lasting 120 secs on an emulated
path with a 10Mbps bottleneck, 40ms RTT, and 1000-packet bottleneck
buffer. Both fully utilize the bottleneck bandwidth, but BBR
achieves this with a median RTT 25x lower (43 ms instead of 1.09
secs).
Our long-term goal is to improve the congestion control algorithms
used on the Internet. We are hopeful that BBR can help advance the
efforts toward this goal, and motivate the community to do further
research.
Test results, performance evaluations, feedback, and BBR-related
discussions are very welcome in the public e-mail list for BBR:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bbr-dev
NOTE: BBR *must* be used with the fq qdisc ("man tc-fq") with pacing
enabled, since pacing is integral to the BBR design and
implementation. BBR without pacing would not function properly, and
may incur unnecessary high packet loss rates.
Signed-off-by: Van Jacobson <vanj@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2016-09-20 03:39:23 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_BBRINFO,
|
2017-08-17 00:35:11 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_CLASS_ID,
|
2017-08-31 16:59:39 +00:00
|
|
|
INET_DIAG_MD5SIG,
|
2016-04-26 08:06:14 +00:00
|
|
|
__INET_DIAG_MAX,
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-26 08:06:14 +00:00
|
|
|
#define INET_DIAG_MAX (__INET_DIAG_MAX - 1)
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* INET_DIAG_MEM */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct inet_diag_meminfo {
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_rmem;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_wmem;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_fmem;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 idiag_tmem;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* INET_DIAG_VEGASINFO */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct tcpvegas_info {
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 tcpv_enabled;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 tcpv_rttcnt;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 tcpv_rtt;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 tcpv_minrtt;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
net: tcp: add DCTCP congestion control algorithm
This work adds the DataCenter TCP (DCTCP) congestion control
algorithm [1], which has been first published at SIGCOMM 2010 [2],
resp. follow-up analysis at SIGMETRICS 2011 [3] (and also, more
recently as an informational IETF draft available at [4]).
DCTCP is an enhancement to the TCP congestion control algorithm for
data center networks. Typical data center workloads are i.e.
i) partition/aggregate (queries; bursty, delay sensitive), ii) short
messages e.g. 50KB-1MB (for coordination and control state; delay
sensitive), and iii) large flows e.g. 1MB-100MB (data update;
throughput sensitive). DCTCP has therefore been designed for such
environments to provide/achieve the following three requirements:
* High burst tolerance (incast due to partition/aggregate)
* Low latency (short flows, queries)
* High throughput (continuous data updates, large file
transfers) with commodity, shallow buffered switches
The basic idea of its design consists of two fundamentals: i) on the
switch side, packets are being marked when its internal queue
length > threshold K (K is chosen so that a large enough headroom
for marked traffic is still available in the switch queue); ii) the
sender/host side maintains a moving average of the fraction of marked
packets, so each RTT, F is being updated as follows:
F := X / Y, where X is # of marked ACKs, Y is total # of ACKs
alpha := (1 - g) * alpha + g * F, where g is a smoothing constant
The resulting alpha (iow: probability that switch queue is congested)
is then being used in order to adaptively decrease the congestion
window W:
W := (1 - (alpha / 2)) * W
The means for receiving marked packets resp. marking them on switch
side in DCTCP is the use of ECN.
RFC3168 describes a mechanism for using Explicit Congestion Notification
from the switch for early detection of congestion, rather than waiting
for segment loss to occur.
However, this method only detects the presence of congestion, not
the *extent*. In the presence of mild congestion, it reduces the TCP
congestion window too aggressively and unnecessarily affects the
throughput of long flows [4].
DCTCP, as mentioned, enhances Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
processing to estimate the fraction of bytes that encounter congestion,
rather than simply detecting that some congestion has occurred. DCTCP
then scales the TCP congestion window based on this estimate [4],
thus it can derive multibit feedback from the information present in
the single-bit sequence of marks in its control law. And thus act in
*proportion* to the extent of congestion, not its *presence*.
Switches therefore set the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint in
packets when internal queue lengths exceed threshold K. Resulting,
DCTCP delivers the same or better throughput than normal TCP, while
using 90% less buffer space.
It was found in [2] that DCTCP enables the applications to handle 10x
the current background traffic, without impacting foreground traffic.
Moreover, a 10x increase in foreground traffic did not cause any
timeouts, and thus largely eliminates TCP incast collapse problems.
The algorithm itself has already seen deployments in large production
data centers since then.
We did a long-term stress-test and analysis in a data center, short
summary of our TCP incast tests with iperf compared to cubic:
This test measured DCTCP throughput and latency and compared it with
CUBIC throughput and latency for an incast scenario. In this test, 19
senders sent at maximum rate to a single receiver. The receiver simply
ran iperf -s.
The senders ran iperf -c <receiver> -t 30. All senders started
simultaneously (using local clocks synchronized by ntp).
This test was repeated multiple times. Below shows the results from a
single test. Other tests are similar. (DCTCP results were extremely
consistent, CUBIC results show some variance induced by the TCP timeouts
that CUBIC encountered.)
For this test, we report statistics on the number of TCP timeouts,
flow throughput, and traffic latency.
1) Timeouts (total over all flows, and per flow summaries):
CUBIC DCTCP
Total 3227 25
Mean 169.842 1.316
Median 183 1
Max 207 5
Min 123 0
Stddev 28.991 1.600
Timeout data is taken by measuring the net change in netstat -s
"other TCP timeouts" reported. As a result, the timeout measurements
above are not restricted to the test traffic, and we believe that it
is likely that all of the "DCTCP timeouts" are actually timeouts for
non-test traffic. We report them nevertheless. CUBIC will also include
some non-test timeouts, but they are drawfed by bona fide test traffic
timeouts for CUBIC. Clearly DCTCP does an excellent job of preventing
TCP timeouts. DCTCP reduces timeouts by at least two orders of
magnitude and may well have eliminated them in this scenario.
2) Throughput (per flow in Mbps):
CUBIC DCTCP
Mean 521.684 521.895
Median 464 523
Max 776 527
Min 403 519
Stddev 105.891 2.601
Fairness 0.962 0.999
Throughput data was simply the average throughput for each flow
reported by iperf. By avoiding TCP timeouts, DCTCP is able to
achieve much better per-flow results. In CUBIC, many flows
experience TCP timeouts which makes flow throughput unpredictable and
unfair. DCTCP, on the other hand, provides very clean predictable
throughput without incurring TCP timeouts. Thus, the standard deviation
of CUBIC throughput is dramatically higher than the standard deviation
of DCTCP throughput.
Mean throughput is nearly identical because even though cubic flows
suffer TCP timeouts, other flows will step in and fill the unused
bandwidth. Note that this test is something of a best case scenario
for incast under CUBIC: it allows other flows to fill in for flows
experiencing a timeout. Under situations where the receiver is issuing
requests and then waiting for all flows to complete, flows cannot fill
in for timed out flows and throughput will drop dramatically.
3) Latency (in ms):
CUBIC DCTCP
Mean 4.0088 0.04219
Median 4.055 0.0395
Max 4.2 0.085
Min 3.32 0.028
Stddev 0.1666 0.01064
Latency for each protocol was computed by running "ping -i 0.2
<receiver>" from a single sender to the receiver during the incast
test. For DCTCP, "ping -Q 0x6 -i 0.2 <receiver>" was used to ensure
that traffic traversed the DCTCP queue and was not dropped when the
queue size was greater than the marking threshold. The summary
statistics above are over all ping metrics measured between the single
sender, receiver pair.
The latency results for this test show a dramatic difference between
CUBIC and DCTCP. CUBIC intentionally overflows the switch buffer
which incurs the maximum queue latency (more buffer memory will lead
to high latency.) DCTCP, on the other hand, deliberately attempts to
keep queue occupancy low. The result is a two orders of magnitude
reduction of latency with DCTCP - even with a switch with relatively
little RAM. Switches with larger amounts of RAM will incur increasing
amounts of latency for CUBIC, but not for DCTCP.
4) Convergence and stability test:
This test measured the time that DCTCP took to fairly redistribute
bandwidth when a new flow commences. It also measured DCTCP's ability
to remain stable at a fair bandwidth distribution. DCTCP is compared
with CUBIC for this test.
At the commencement of this test, a single flow is sending at maximum
rate (near 10 Gbps) to a single receiver. One second after that first
flow commences, a new flow from a distinct server begins sending to
the same receiver as the first flow. After the second flow has sent
data for 10 seconds, the second flow is terminated. The first flow
sends for an additional second. Ideally, the bandwidth would be evenly
shared as soon as the second flow starts, and recover as soon as it
stops.
The results of this test are shown below. Note that the flow bandwidth
for the two flows was measured near the same time, but not
simultaneously.
DCTCP performs nearly perfectly within the measurement limitations
of this test: bandwidth is quickly distributed fairly between the two
flows, remains stable throughout the duration of the test, and
recovers quickly. CUBIC, in contrast, is slow to divide the bandwidth
fairly, and has trouble remaining stable.
CUBIC DCTCP
Seconds Flow 1 Flow 2 Seconds Flow 1 Flow 2
0 9.93 0 0 9.92 0
0.5 9.87 0 0.5 9.86 0
1 8.73 2.25 1 6.46 4.88
1.5 7.29 2.8 1.5 4.9 4.99
2 6.96 3.1 2 4.92 4.94
2.5 6.67 3.34 2.5 4.93 5
3 6.39 3.57 3 4.92 4.99
3.5 6.24 3.75 3.5 4.94 4.74
4 6 3.94 4 5.34 4.71
4.5 5.88 4.09 4.5 4.99 4.97
5 5.27 4.98 5 4.83 5.01
5.5 4.93 5.04 5.5 4.89 4.99
6 4.9 4.99 6 4.92 5.04
6.5 4.93 5.1 6.5 4.91 4.97
7 4.28 5.8 7 4.97 4.97
7.5 4.62 4.91 7.5 4.99 4.82
8 5.05 4.45 8 5.16 4.76
8.5 5.93 4.09 8.5 4.94 4.98
9 5.73 4.2 9 4.92 5.02
9.5 5.62 4.32 9.5 4.87 5.03
10 6.12 3.2 10 4.91 5.01
10.5 6.91 3.11 10.5 4.87 5.04
11 8.48 0 11 8.49 4.94
11.5 9.87 0 11.5 9.9 0
SYN/ACK ECT test:
This test demonstrates the importance of ECT on SYN and SYN-ACK packets
by measuring the connection probability in the presence of competing
flows for a DCTCP connection attempt *without* ECT in the SYN packet.
The test was repeated five times for each number of competing flows.
Competing Flows 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16
------------------------------
Mean Connection Probability 1 | 0.67 | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0
Median Connection Probability 1 | 0.65 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0
As the number of competing flows moves beyond 1, the connection
probability drops rapidly.
Enabling DCTCP with this patch requires the following steps:
DCTCP must be running both on the sender and receiver side in your
data center, i.e.:
sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=dctcp
Also, ECN functionality must be enabled on all switches in your
data center for DCTCP to work. The default ECN marking threshold (K)
heuristic on the switch for DCTCP is e.g., 20 packets (30KB) at
1Gbps, and 65 packets (~100KB) at 10Gbps (K > 1/7 * C * RTT, [4]).
In above tests, for each switch port, traffic was segregated into two
queues. For any packet with a DSCP of 0x01 - or equivalently a TOS of
0x04 - the packet was placed into the DCTCP queue. All other packets
were placed into the default drop-tail queue. For the DCTCP queue,
RED/ECN marking was enabled, here, with a marking threshold of 75 KB.
More details however, we refer you to the paper [2] under section 3).
There are no code changes required to applications running in user
space. DCTCP has been implemented in full *isolation* of the rest of
the TCP code as its own congestion control module, so that it can run
without a need to expose code to the core of the TCP stack, and thus
nothing changes for non-DCTCP users.
Changes in the CA framework code are minimal, and DCTCP algorithm
operates on mechanisms that are already available in most Silicon.
The gain (dctcp_shift_g) is currently a fixed constant (1/16) from
the paper, but we leave the option that it can be chosen carefully
to a different value by the user.
In case DCTCP is being used and ECN support on peer site is off,
DCTCP falls back after 3WHS to operate in normal TCP Reno mode.
ss {-4,-6} -t -i diag interface:
... dctcp wscale:7,7 rto:203 rtt:2.349/0.026 mss:1448 cwnd:2054
ssthresh:1102 ce_state 0 alpha 15 ab_ecn 0 ab_tot 735584
send 10129.2Mbps pacing_rate 20254.1Mbps unacked:1822 retrans:0/15
reordering:101 rcv_space:29200
... dctcp-reno wscale:7,7 rto:201 rtt:0.711/1.327 ato:40 mss:1448
cwnd:10 ssthresh:1102 fallback_mode send 162.9Mbps pacing_rate
325.5Mbps rcv_rtt:1.5 rcv_space:29200
More information about DCTCP can be found in [1-4].
[1] http://simula.stanford.edu/~alizade/Site/DCTCP.html
[2] http://simula.stanford.edu/~alizade/Site/DCTCP_files/dctcp-final.pdf
[3] http://simula.stanford.edu/~alizade/Site/DCTCP_files/dctcp_analysis-full.pdf
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-00
Joint work with Florian Westphal and Glenn Judd.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Signed-off-by: Glenn Judd <glenn.judd@morganstanley.com>
Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2014-09-26 20:37:36 +00:00
|
|
|
/* INET_DIAG_DCTCPINFO */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct tcp_dctcp_info {
|
|
|
|
|
__u16 dctcp_enabled;
|
|
|
|
|
__u16 dctcp_ce_state;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 dctcp_alpha;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 dctcp_ab_ecn;
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 dctcp_ab_tot;
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control
This commit implements a new TCP congestion control algorithm: BBR
(Bottleneck Bandwidth and RTT). A detailed description of BBR will be
published in ACM Queue, Vol. 14 No. 5, September-October 2016, as
"BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control".
BBR has significantly increased throughput and reduced latency for
connections on Google's internal backbone networks and google.com and
YouTube Web servers.
BBR requires only changes on the sender side, not in the network or
the receiver side. Thus it can be incrementally deployed on today's
Internet, or in datacenters.
The Internet has predominantly used loss-based congestion control
(largely Reno or CUBIC) since the 1980s, relying on packet loss as the
signal to slow down. While this worked well for many years, loss-based
congestion control is unfortunately out-dated in today's networks. On
today's Internet, loss-based congestion control causes the infamous
bufferbloat problem, often causing seconds of needless queuing delay,
since it fills the bloated buffers in many last-mile links. On today's
high-speed long-haul links using commodity switches with shallow
buffers, loss-based congestion control has abysmal throughput because
it over-reacts to losses caused by transient traffic bursts.
In 1981 Kleinrock and Gale showed that the optimal operating point for
a network maximizes delivered bandwidth while minimizing delay and
loss, not only for single connections but for the network as a
whole. Finding that optimal operating point has been elusive, since
any single network measurement is ambiguous: network measurements are
the result of both bandwidth and propagation delay, and those two
cannot be measured simultaneously.
While it is impossible to disambiguate any single bandwidth or RTT
measurement, a connection's behavior over time tells a clearer
story. BBR uses a measurement strategy designed to resolve this
ambiguity. It combines these measurements with a robust servo loop
using recent control systems advances to implement a distributed
congestion control algorithm that reacts to actual congestion, not
packet loss or transient queue delay, and is designed to converge with
high probability to a point near the optimal operating point.
In a nutshell, BBR creates an explicit model of the network pipe by
sequentially probing the bottleneck bandwidth and RTT. On the arrival
of each ACK, BBR derives the current delivery rate of the last round
trip, and feeds it through a windowed max-filter to estimate the
bottleneck bandwidth. Conversely it uses a windowed min-filter to
estimate the round trip propagation delay. The max-filtered bandwidth
and min-filtered RTT estimates form BBR's model of the network pipe.
Using its model, BBR sets control parameters to govern sending
behavior. The primary control is the pacing rate: BBR applies a gain
multiplier to transmit faster or slower than the observed bottleneck
bandwidth. The conventional congestion window (cwnd) is now the
secondary control; the cwnd is set to a small multiple of the
estimated BDP (bandwidth-delay product) in order to allow full
utilization and bandwidth probing while bounding the potential amount
of queue at the bottleneck.
When a BBR connection starts, it enters STARTUP mode and applies a
high gain to perform an exponential search to quickly probe the
bottleneck bandwidth (doubling its sending rate each round trip, like
slow start). However, instead of continuing until it fills up the
buffer (i.e. a loss), or until delay or ACK spacing reaches some
threshold (like Hystart), it uses its model of the pipe to estimate
when that pipe is full: it estimates the pipe is full when it notices
the estimated bandwidth has stopped growing. At that point it exits
STARTUP and enters DRAIN mode, where it reduces its pacing rate to
drain the queue it estimates it has created.
Then BBR enters steady state. In steady state, PROBE_BW mode cycles
between first pacing faster to probe for more bandwidth, then pacing
slower to drain any queue that created if no more bandwidth was
available, and then cruising at the estimated bandwidth to utilize the
pipe without creating excess queue. Occasionally, on an as-needed
basis, it sends significantly slower to probe for RTT (PROBE_RTT
mode).
BBR has been fully deployed on Google's wide-area backbone networks
and we're experimenting with BBR on Google.com and YouTube on a global
scale. Replacing CUBIC with BBR has resulted in significant
improvements in network latency and application (RPC, browser, and
video) metrics. For more details please refer to our upcoming ACM
Queue publication.
Example performance results, to illustrate the difference between BBR
and CUBIC:
Resilience to random loss (e.g. from shallow buffers):
Consider a netperf TCP_STREAM test lasting 30 secs on an emulated
path with a 10Gbps bottleneck, 100ms RTT, and 1% packet loss
rate. CUBIC gets 3.27 Mbps, and BBR gets 9150 Mbps (2798x higher).
Low latency with the bloated buffers common in today's last-mile links:
Consider a netperf TCP_STREAM test lasting 120 secs on an emulated
path with a 10Mbps bottleneck, 40ms RTT, and 1000-packet bottleneck
buffer. Both fully utilize the bottleneck bandwidth, but BBR
achieves this with a median RTT 25x lower (43 ms instead of 1.09
secs).
Our long-term goal is to improve the congestion control algorithms
used on the Internet. We are hopeful that BBR can help advance the
efforts toward this goal, and motivate the community to do further
research.
Test results, performance evaluations, feedback, and BBR-related
discussions are very welcome in the public e-mail list for BBR:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bbr-dev
NOTE: BBR *must* be used with the fq qdisc ("man tc-fq") with pacing
enabled, since pacing is integral to the BBR design and
implementation. BBR without pacing would not function properly, and
may incur unnecessary high packet loss rates.
Signed-off-by: Van Jacobson <vanj@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2016-09-20 03:39:23 +00:00
|
|
|
/* INET_DIAG_BBRINFO */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
struct tcp_bbr_info {
|
|
|
|
|
/* u64 bw: max-filtered BW (app throughput) estimate in Byte per sec: */
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 bbr_bw_lo; /* lower 32 bits of bw */
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 bbr_bw_hi; /* upper 32 bits of bw */
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 bbr_min_rtt; /* min-filtered RTT in uSec */
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 bbr_pacing_gain; /* pacing gain shifted left 8 bits */
|
|
|
|
|
__u32 bbr_cwnd_gain; /* cwnd gain shifted left 8 bits */
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-04-28 23:23:48 +00:00
|
|
|
union tcp_cc_info {
|
|
|
|
|
struct tcpvegas_info vegas;
|
|
|
|
|
struct tcp_dctcp_info dctcp;
|
tcp_bbr: add BBR congestion control
This commit implements a new TCP congestion control algorithm: BBR
(Bottleneck Bandwidth and RTT). A detailed description of BBR will be
published in ACM Queue, Vol. 14 No. 5, September-October 2016, as
"BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control".
BBR has significantly increased throughput and reduced latency for
connections on Google's internal backbone networks and google.com and
YouTube Web servers.
BBR requires only changes on the sender side, not in the network or
the receiver side. Thus it can be incrementally deployed on today's
Internet, or in datacenters.
The Internet has predominantly used loss-based congestion control
(largely Reno or CUBIC) since the 1980s, relying on packet loss as the
signal to slow down. While this worked well for many years, loss-based
congestion control is unfortunately out-dated in today's networks. On
today's Internet, loss-based congestion control causes the infamous
bufferbloat problem, often causing seconds of needless queuing delay,
since it fills the bloated buffers in many last-mile links. On today's
high-speed long-haul links using commodity switches with shallow
buffers, loss-based congestion control has abysmal throughput because
it over-reacts to losses caused by transient traffic bursts.
In 1981 Kleinrock and Gale showed that the optimal operating point for
a network maximizes delivered bandwidth while minimizing delay and
loss, not only for single connections but for the network as a
whole. Finding that optimal operating point has been elusive, since
any single network measurement is ambiguous: network measurements are
the result of both bandwidth and propagation delay, and those two
cannot be measured simultaneously.
While it is impossible to disambiguate any single bandwidth or RTT
measurement, a connection's behavior over time tells a clearer
story. BBR uses a measurement strategy designed to resolve this
ambiguity. It combines these measurements with a robust servo loop
using recent control systems advances to implement a distributed
congestion control algorithm that reacts to actual congestion, not
packet loss or transient queue delay, and is designed to converge with
high probability to a point near the optimal operating point.
In a nutshell, BBR creates an explicit model of the network pipe by
sequentially probing the bottleneck bandwidth and RTT. On the arrival
of each ACK, BBR derives the current delivery rate of the last round
trip, and feeds it through a windowed max-filter to estimate the
bottleneck bandwidth. Conversely it uses a windowed min-filter to
estimate the round trip propagation delay. The max-filtered bandwidth
and min-filtered RTT estimates form BBR's model of the network pipe.
Using its model, BBR sets control parameters to govern sending
behavior. The primary control is the pacing rate: BBR applies a gain
multiplier to transmit faster or slower than the observed bottleneck
bandwidth. The conventional congestion window (cwnd) is now the
secondary control; the cwnd is set to a small multiple of the
estimated BDP (bandwidth-delay product) in order to allow full
utilization and bandwidth probing while bounding the potential amount
of queue at the bottleneck.
When a BBR connection starts, it enters STARTUP mode and applies a
high gain to perform an exponential search to quickly probe the
bottleneck bandwidth (doubling its sending rate each round trip, like
slow start). However, instead of continuing until it fills up the
buffer (i.e. a loss), or until delay or ACK spacing reaches some
threshold (like Hystart), it uses its model of the pipe to estimate
when that pipe is full: it estimates the pipe is full when it notices
the estimated bandwidth has stopped growing. At that point it exits
STARTUP and enters DRAIN mode, where it reduces its pacing rate to
drain the queue it estimates it has created.
Then BBR enters steady state. In steady state, PROBE_BW mode cycles
between first pacing faster to probe for more bandwidth, then pacing
slower to drain any queue that created if no more bandwidth was
available, and then cruising at the estimated bandwidth to utilize the
pipe without creating excess queue. Occasionally, on an as-needed
basis, it sends significantly slower to probe for RTT (PROBE_RTT
mode).
BBR has been fully deployed on Google's wide-area backbone networks
and we're experimenting with BBR on Google.com and YouTube on a global
scale. Replacing CUBIC with BBR has resulted in significant
improvements in network latency and application (RPC, browser, and
video) metrics. For more details please refer to our upcoming ACM
Queue publication.
Example performance results, to illustrate the difference between BBR
and CUBIC:
Resilience to random loss (e.g. from shallow buffers):
Consider a netperf TCP_STREAM test lasting 30 secs on an emulated
path with a 10Gbps bottleneck, 100ms RTT, and 1% packet loss
rate. CUBIC gets 3.27 Mbps, and BBR gets 9150 Mbps (2798x higher).
Low latency with the bloated buffers common in today's last-mile links:
Consider a netperf TCP_STREAM test lasting 120 secs on an emulated
path with a 10Mbps bottleneck, 40ms RTT, and 1000-packet bottleneck
buffer. Both fully utilize the bottleneck bandwidth, but BBR
achieves this with a median RTT 25x lower (43 ms instead of 1.09
secs).
Our long-term goal is to improve the congestion control algorithms
used on the Internet. We are hopeful that BBR can help advance the
efforts toward this goal, and motivate the community to do further
research.
Test results, performance evaluations, feedback, and BBR-related
discussions are very welcome in the public e-mail list for BBR:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bbr-dev
NOTE: BBR *must* be used with the fq qdisc ("man tc-fq") with pacing
enabled, since pacing is integral to the BBR design and
implementation. BBR without pacing would not function properly, and
may incur unnecessary high packet loss rates.
Signed-off-by: Van Jacobson <vanj@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2016-09-20 03:39:23 +00:00
|
|
|
struct tcp_bbr_info bbr;
|
2015-04-28 23:23:48 +00:00
|
|
|
};
|
2012-10-13 09:46:48 +00:00
|
|
|
#endif /* _UAPI_INET_DIAG_H_ */
|