On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 5:09 PM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:41:22 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Seems like I'm pretty lost here and the tcp:tcp_retransmit_skb events
are less spurious than I thought. Looking at some tcpdump traces we see:

0.045277 IP6 A > B: Flags [SEW], seq 2248382925:2248383296, win 61920, options [mss 1440,sackOK,TS val 658870494 ecr 0,nop,wscale 11], length 371

0.045348 IP6 B > A: Flags [S.E], seq 961169456, ack 2248382926, win 65535, options [mss 1440,sackOK,TS val 883864022 ecr 658870494,nop,wscale 9], length 0

The SYNACK does not include the prior payload.

quoted

0.045369 IP6 A > B: Flags [P.], seq 1:372, ack 1, win 31, options [nop,nop,TS val 658870494 ecr 883864022], length 371

So this rtx is not spurious.

However in your prior email you wrote :

bytes_in:      0
bytes_out:   742
bytes_acked: 742

Are you sure that at the time of the retransmit, bytes_acked was 742 ?
I do not see how this could happen.

Yes, this packetdrill test confirms TCP INFO stuff seems correct .

Looks like it's TcpExtTCPSpuriousRtxHostQueues - the TFO fails as it
might, but at the time the syn is still not kfree_skb()d because of
the IRQ coalescing settings, so __tcp_retransmit_skb() returns -EBUSY
and we have to wait for a timeout.

Credit to Neil Spring @FB for figuring it out.

Yes, this makes sense.

Presumably tcp_send_syn_data() could allocate a regular (non fclone)
skb, to avoid this.

But if skb_still_in_host_queue() returns true, __tcp_retransmit_skb()
should return -EBUSY
and your tracepoint should not be called ?

In anycase, the bytes_acked should not be 742 as mentioned in your
email, if only the SYN was acked ?