linux/net/tipc/msg.c

639 lines
17 KiB

2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
tipc: clean up handling of message priorities Messages transferred by TIPC are assigned an "importance priority", -an integer value indicating how to treat the message when there is link or destination socket congestion. There is no separate header field for this value. Instead, the message user values have been chosen in ascending order according to perceived importance, so that the message user field can be used for this. This is not a good solution. First, we have many more users than the needed priority levels, so we end up with treating more priority levels than necessary. Second, the user field cannot always accurately reflect the priority of the message. E.g., a message fragment packet should really have the priority of the enveloped user data message, and not the priority of the MSG_FRAGMENTER user. Until now, we have been working around this problem in different ways, but it is now time to implement a consistent way of handling such priorities, although still within the constraint that we cannot allocate any more bits in the regular data message header for this. In this commit, we define a new priority level, TIPC_SYSTEM_IMPORTANCE, that will be the only one used apart from the four (lower) user data levels. All non-data messages map down to this priority. Furthermore, we take some free bits from the MSG_FRAGMENTER header and allocate them to store the priority of the enveloped message. We then adjust the functions msg_importance()/msg_set_importance() so that they read/set the correct header fields depending on user type. This small protocol change is fully compatible, because the code at the receiving end of a link currently reads the importance level only from user data messages, where there is no change. Reviewed-by: Erik Hugne <erik.hugne@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-03-13 16:08:11 -04:00
tipc: improve link congestion algorithm The link congestion algorithm used until now implies two problems. - It is too generous towards lower-level messages in situations of high load by giving "absolute" bandwidth guarantees to the different priority levels. LOW traffic is guaranteed 10%, MEDIUM is guaranted 20%, HIGH is guaranteed 30%, and CRITICAL is guaranteed 40% of the available bandwidth. But, in the absence of higher level traffic, the ratio between two distinct levels becomes unreasonable. E.g. if there is only LOW and MEDIUM traffic on a system, the former is guaranteed 1/3 of the bandwidth, and the latter 2/3. This again means that if there is e.g. one LOW user and 10 MEDIUM users, the former will have 33.3% of the bandwidth, and the others will have to compete for the remainder, i.e. each will end up with 6.7% of the capacity. - Packets of type MSG_BUNDLER are created at SYSTEM importance level, but only after the packets bundled into it have passed the congestion test for their own respective levels. Since bundled packets don't result in incrementing the level counter for their own importance, only occasionally for the SYSTEM level counter, they do in practice obtain SYSTEM level importance. Hence, the current implementation provides a gap in the congestion algorithm that in the worst case may lead to a link reset. We now refine the congestion algorithm as follows: - A message is accepted to the link backlog only if its own level counter, and all superior level counters, permit it. - The importance of a created bundle packet is set according to its contents. A bundle packet created from messges at levels LOW to CRITICAL is given importance level CRITICAL, while a bundle created from a SYSTEM level message is given importance SYSTEM. In the latter case only subsequent SYSTEM level messages are allowed to be bundled into it. This solves the first problem described above, by making the bandwidth guarantee relative to the total number of users at all levels; only the upper limit for each level remains absolute. In the example described above, the single LOW user would use 1/11th of the bandwidth, the same as each of the ten MEDIUM users, but he still has the same guarantee against starvation as the latter ones. The fix also solves the second problem. If the CRITICAL level is filled up by bundle packets of that level, no lower level packets will be accepted any more. Suggested-by: Gergely Kiss <gergely.kiss@ericsson.com> Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-05-14 10:46:17 -04:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
tipc: resolve race problem at unicast message reception TIPC handles message cardinality and sequencing at the link layer, before passing messages upwards to the destination sockets. During the upcall from link to socket no locks are held. It is therefore possible, and we see it happen occasionally, that messages arriving in different threads and delivered in sequence still bypass each other before they reach the destination socket. This must not happen, since it violates the sequentiality guarantee. We solve this by adding a new input buffer queue to the link structure. Arriving messages are added safely to the tail of that queue by the link, while the head of the queue is consumed, also safely, by the receiving socket. Sequentiality is secured per socket by only allowing buffers to be dequeued inside the socket lock. Since there may be multiple simultaneous readers of the queue, we use a 'filter' parameter to reduce the risk that they peek the same buffer from the queue, hence also reducing the risk of contention on the receiving socket locks. This solves the sequentiality problem, and seems to cause no measurable performance degradation. A nice side effect of this change is that lock handling in the functions tipc_rcv() and tipc_bcast_rcv() now becomes uniform, something that will enable future simplifications of those functions. Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-02-05 08:36:41 -05:00
2015-02-05 08:36:36 -05:00
tipc: improve link congestion algorithm The link congestion algorithm used until now implies two problems. - It is too generous towards lower-level messages in situations of high load by giving "absolute" bandwidth guarantees to the different priority levels. LOW traffic is guaranteed 10%, MEDIUM is guaranted 20%, HIGH is guaranteed 30%, and CRITICAL is guaranteed 40% of the available bandwidth. But, in the absence of higher level traffic, the ratio between two distinct levels becomes unreasonable. E.g. if there is only LOW and MEDIUM traffic on a system, the former is guaranteed 1/3 of the bandwidth, and the latter 2/3. This again means that if there is e.g. one LOW user and 10 MEDIUM users, the former will have 33.3% of the bandwidth, and the others will have to compete for the remainder, i.e. each will end up with 6.7% of the capacity. - Packets of type MSG_BUNDLER are created at SYSTEM importance level, but only after the packets bundled into it have passed the congestion test for their own respective levels. Since bundled packets don't result in incrementing the level counter for their own importance, only occasionally for the SYSTEM level counter, they do in practice obtain SYSTEM level importance. Hence, the current implementation provides a gap in the congestion algorithm that in the worst case may lead to a link reset. We now refine the congestion algorithm as follows: - A message is accepted to the link backlog only if its own level counter, and all superior level counters, permit it. - The importance of a created bundle packet is set according to its contents. A bundle packet created from messges at levels LOW to CRITICAL is given importance level CRITICAL, while a bundle created from a SYSTEM level message is given importance SYSTEM. In the latter case only subsequent SYSTEM level messages are allowed to be bundled into it. This solves the first problem described above, by making the bandwidth guarantee relative to the total number of users at all levels; only the upper limit for each level remains absolute. In the example described above, the single LOW user would use 1/11th of the bandwidth, the same as each of the ten MEDIUM users, but he still has the same guarantee against starvation as the latter ones. The fix also solves the second problem. If the CRITICAL level is filled up by bundle packets of that level, no lower level packets will be accepted any more. Suggested-by: Gergely Kiss <gergely.kiss@ericsson.com> Reviewed-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2015-05-14 10:46:17 -04:00