Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:10:13 +0530 From: Sriram Gorti <gsriram@gmail.com> To: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Question on TCP reassembly counter Message-ID: <AANLkTimPVE8muyJqRpeK3Qjq8jJSu4Qto89qKrRGiouz@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4CC2254C.7070104@freebsd.org> References: <AANLkTikWWmrnBy_DGgSsDbh6NAzWGKCWiFPnCRkwoDRi@mail.gmail.com> <4CA5D1F0.3000307@freebsd.org> <4CA9B6AC.20403@freebsd.org> <4CBB6CE9.1030009@freebsd.org> <AANLkTinvt4kCQNkf1ueDw0CFaYE9SELsBK8nR2yQKytZ@mail.gmail.com> <4CC2254C.7070104@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 10/22/10 18:10, Sriram Gorti wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the fix. Tried it on XLR/XLS and the earlier tests pass >> now. net.inet.tcp.reass.overflows was always zero after the tests (and >> in the samples I took while the tests were running). > > Great, thanks for testing. > >> One observation though: net.inet.tcp.reass.cursegments was non-zero >> (it was just 1) after 30 rounds, where each round is (as earlier) >> 15-concurrent instances of netperf for 20s. This was on the netserver >> side. And, it was zero before the netperf runs. On the other hand, >> Andre told me (in a separate mail) that this counter is not relevant >> anymore - so, should I just ignore it ? > > It's relevant, just not guaranteed to be 100% accurate at any given > point in time. The value is calculated based on synchronised access to > UMA zone stats and unsynchronised access to UMA per-cpu zone stats. The > latter is safe, but causes the overall result to potentially be > inaccurate due to use of stale data. The accuracy vs overhead tradeoff > was deemed worthwhile for informational counters like this one. > > That being said, I would not expect the value to remain persistently at > 1 after all TCP activity has finished on the machine. It won't affect > performance, but I'm curious to know if the calculation method has a > flaw. I'll try to reproduce locally, but can you please confirm if the > value stays at 1 even after many minutes of no TCP activity? > This behavior does repeat easily but finally it did. Even after leaving the system alone (other than for background NFS messages) for a few mins, the value persists. After a little more investigation, it is observed that one of the spawned netserver's has not terminated and when it is explicitly terminated, the sysctl of interest drops back to zero. Does that mean the TCP reassembly portion is doing okay ? But, it opens up the question of why the netserver has not terminated. I will dig further into it but if you have any quick suggestions, they are most welcome. thanks, Sriram
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimPVE8muyJqRpeK3Qjq8jJSu4Qto89qKrRGiouz>