Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth

[Oleksandr Natalenko]

Hi, David, Eric, Neal et al.

On Ätvrtek 15. Ãnora 2018 21:42:26 CET Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> I've faced an issue with a limited TCP bandwidth between my laptop and a
> server in my 1 Gbps LAN while using BBR as a congestion control mechanism.
> To verify my observations, I've set up 2 KVM VMs with the following
> parameters:
> 
> 1) Linux v4.15.3
> 2) virtio NICs
> 3) 128 MiB of RAM
> 4) 2 vCPUs
> 5) tested on both non-PREEMPT/100 Hz and PREEMPT/1000 Hz
> 
> The VMs are interconnected via host bridge (-netdev bridge). I was running
> iperf3 in the default and reverse mode. Here are the results:
> 
> 1) BBR on both VMs
> 
> upload: 3.42 Gbits/sec, cwnd ~ 320 KBytes
> download: 3.39 Gbits/sec, cwnd ~ 320 KBytes
> 
> 2) Reno on both VMs
> 
> upload: 5.50 Gbits/sec, cwnd = 976 KBytes (constant)
> download: 5.22 Gbits/sec, cwnd = 1.20 MBytes (constant)
> 
> 3) Reno on client, BBR on server
> 
> upload: 5.29 Gbits/sec, cwnd = 952 KBytes (constant)
> download: 3.45 Gbits/sec, cwnd ~ 320 KBytes
> 
> 4) BBR on client, Reno on server
> 
> upload: 3.36 Gbits/sec, cwnd ~ 370 KBytes
> download: 5.21 Gbits/sec, cwnd = 887 KBytes (constant)
> 
> So, as you may see, when BBR is in use, upload rate is bad and cwnd is low.
> If using real HW (1 Gbps LAN, laptop and server), BBR limits the throughput
> to ~100 Mbps (verifiable not only by iperf3, but also by scp while
> transferring some files between hosts).
> 
> Also, I've tried to use YeAH instead of Reno, and it gives me the same
> results as Reno (IOW, YeAH works fine too).
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1) is this expected?
> 2) or am I missing some extra BBR tuneable?
> 3) if it is not a regression (I don't have any previous data to compare
> with), how can I fix this?
> 4) if it is a bug in BBR, what else should I provide or check for a proper
> investigation?

I've played with BBR a little bit more and managed to narrow the issue down to 
the changes between v4.12 and v4.13. Here are my observations:

v4.12 + BBR + fq_codel == OK
v4.12 + BBR + fq       == OK
v4.13 + BBR + fq_codel == Not OK
v4.13 + BBR + fq       == OK

I think this has something to do with an internal TCP implementation for 
pacing, that was introduced in v4.13 (commit 218af599fa63) specifically to 
allow using BBR together with non-fq qdiscs. Once BBR relies on fq, the 
throughput is high and saturates the link, but if another qdisc is in use, for 
instance, fq_codel, the throughput drops. Just to be sure, I've also tried 
pfifo_fast instead of fq_codel with the same outcome resulting in the low 
throughput.

Unfortunately, I do not know if this is something expected or should be 
considered as a regression. Thus, asking for an advice.

Ideas?

Thanks.

Regards,
  Oleksandr