Re: Debugging stuck tcp connection across localhost [snip]

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 1/12/22 9:12 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 6:52 AM Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/11/22 11:41 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:35 PM Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/11/22 2:46 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>>

>>> Just to clarify:
>>>
>>> Have you any qdisc on lo interface ?
>>>
>>> Can you try:
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>>> index 5079832af5c1090917a8fd5dfb1a3025e2d85ae0..81a26ce4d79fd48f870b5c1d076a9082950e2a57
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>>> @@ -2769,6 +2769,7 @@ bool tcp_schedule_loss_probe(struct sock *sk,
>>> bool advancing_rto)
>>>    static bool skb_still_in_host_queue(struct sock *sk,
>>>                                       const struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>    {
>>> +#if 0
>>>           if (unlikely(skb_fclone_busy(sk, skb))) {
>>>                   set_bit(TSQ_THROTTLED, &sk->sk_tsq_flags);
>>>                   smp_mb__after_atomic();
>>> @@ -2778,6 +2779,7 @@ static bool skb_still_in_host_queue(struct sock *sk,
>>>                           return true;
>>>                   }
>>>           }
>>> +#endif
>>>           return false;
>>>    }
>>>
>>
>> I will try that today.
>>
>> I don't think I have qdisc on lo:
>>
>> # tc qdisc show|grep 'dev lo'
>> qdisc noqueue 0: dev lo root refcnt 2
> 
> Great, I wanted to make sure you were not hitting some bug there
> (pfifo_fast has been buggy for many kernel versions)
> 
>>
>> The eth ports are using fq_codel, and I guess they are using mq as well.
>>
>> We moved one of the processes off of the problematic machine so that it communicates over
>> Ethernet instead of 'lo', and problem seems to have gone away.  But, that also
>> changes system load, so it could be coincidence.
>>
>> Also, conntrack -L showed nothing on a machine with simpler config where the two problematic processes
>> are talking over 'lo'.  The machine that shows problem does have a lot of conntrack entries because it
>> is also doing some NAT for other data connections, but I don't think this should affect the 127.0.0.1 traffic.
>> There is a decent chance I mis-understand your comment about conntrack though...
> 
> This was a wild guess. Honestly, I do not have a smoking gun yet.

I tried your patch above, it did not help.

Also, looks like maybe we reproduced same issue with processes on different
machines, but I was not able to verify it was the same root cause, and at
least, it was harder to reproduce.

I'm back to testing in the easily reproducible case now.

I have a few local patches in the general networking path, I'm going to
attempt to back those out just in case my patches are buggy.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com