-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 966
BBR: Check for app-limited at the beginning of the packet recv / send loop #2328
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
antoniovicente
wants to merge
2
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
antonio/app_limited
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
TBH I don't particularly like that every application now has to change how it uses quiche to get correct behaviour... this API also seems kind of leaky and exposes internal architecture details that applications shouldn't really care about.
Could we detect the start automatically? Say, have an internal
was_flushable_at_loop_stat: Option<bool>parameter that is initialized early inrecv()if it'sNone, and then reset toNoneon the firstsend()call?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems very magical. If there is truly a guarantee that the event loop will involve a call to on_timeout, followed by other stuff maybe we can hide the new call inside on_timeout. But the problem is the transitions from not having flushable data to having flushable data. I need to know the value of that call before wait_for_data_or_handshake changes it.
The location of this whole event loop feels somewhat wrong. Things would be simpler if this logic could be moved to quiche; there is strict order of operations and things will go wrong if you get the order wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, I think that there is no guarantee that on_timeout or recv will be called in each loop iteration. Recv will only happen in cases where at least 1 packet has arrived.
I think this means that the first call into quiche could be on_timeout(), recv() or send_on_path().
Similarly there's no great signaling for the end of the loop iteration. We could try to look at differences in Instant::now, but the lack of a now argument to on_timeout(), recv() or send_on_path() makes that difficult; you can't tell based on time if two consecutive send_on_path calls happen on the same or different iterations of the event loop.
Is there something I'm missing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be good to gather information from this new experiment while we figure out the API issues. Could we consider marking some of the new APIs internal and proceed with this PR mostly as-is?
Personally I would like to see a
now: Instantargument to on_timeout(), recv() or send_on_path(). But I would also like to see some simplifications to the quiche API by moving more of the work loop to quiche. The current API is just too low level and prone to change.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Moving to draft while I work on alternative API.