On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:06 PM Joe Stringer [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Cong,

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:39 PM Cong Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:34 AM Alexei Starovoitov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:36 AM Cong Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We don't go back to why user-space cleanup is inefficient again,
do we? ;)

I remain unconvinced that cilium conntrack _needs_ timer apis.
It works fine in production and I don't hear any complaints
from cilium users. So 'user space cleanup inefficiencies' is
very subjective and cannot be the reason to add timer apis.

I am pretty sure I showed the original report to you when I sent
timeout hashmap patch, in case you forgot here it is again:
https://github.com/cilium/cilium/issues/5048

and let me quote the original report here:

"The current implementation (as of v1.2) for managing the contents of
the datapath connection tracking map leaves something to be desired:
Once per minute, the userspace cilium-agent makes a series of calls to
the bpf() syscall to fetch all of the entries in the map to determine
whether they should be deleted. For each entry in the map, 2-3 calls
must be made: One to fetch the next key, one to fetch the value, and
perhaps one to delete the entry. The maximum size of the map is 1
million entries, and if the current count approaches this size then
the garbage collection goroutine may spend a significant number of CPU
cycles iterating and deleting elements from the conntrack map."

I'm also curious to hear more details as I haven't seen any recent
discussion in the common Cilium community channels (GitHub / Slack)
around deficiencies in the conntrack garbage collection since we
addressed the LRU issues upstream and switched back to LRU maps.
There's an update to the report quoted from the same link above:

"In recent releases, we've moved back to LRU for management of the CT
maps so the core problem is not as bad; furthermore we have
implemented a backoff for GC depending on the size and number of
entries in the conntrack table, so that in active environments the
userspace GC is frequent enough to prevent issues but in relatively
passive environments the userspace GC is only rarely run (to minimize
CPU impact)."

Thanks for sharing the update. I am sure Jamal/Pedro measured LRU
and percpu LRU as well, hope they can share the numbers here.

By "core problem is not as bad", I would have been referring to the
way that failing to garbage collect hashtables in a timely manner can
lead to rejecting new connections due to lack of available map space.
Switching back to LRU mitigated this concern. With a reduced frequency

LRU eviction only kicks in when the space is full, which is already too
late. More importantly, with LRU, when an entry becomes "expired"
is nondeterministic, which contradicts the definition of conntrack,
which is time based.

of running the garbage collection logic, the CPU impact is lower as
well. I don't think we've explored batched map ops for this use case
yet either, which would already serve to improve the CPU usage
situation without extending the kernel.

Sure, if we could let GC run once every year, the amortized CPU
overhead would become literally zero. ;) I am sure this is not what
you really want to suggest.

The main outstanding issue I'm aware of is that we will often have a
1:1 mapping of entries in the CT map and the NAT map, and ideally we'd
like them to have tied fates but currently we have no mechanism to do
this with LRU. When LRU eviction occurs, the entries can get out of
sync until the next GC. I could imagine timers helping with this if we
were to switch back to hash maps since we could handle this problem in
custom eviction logic, but that would reintroduce the entry management
problem above. So then we'd still need more work to figure out how to
address that with a timers approach. If I were to guess right now, the
right solution for this particular problem is probably associating
programs with map entry lifecycle events (like LRU eviction) rather
than adding timers to trigger the logic we want, but that's a whole
different discussion.

I proposed a timeout hashmap before this ebpf timer, it is Alexei
who suggested abstracting it as a timer, which makes sense to me.
So, I am not sure what you are suggesting here, at least we are not
going back to timeout hashmap or anything similarly tied closely
with a map.

Thanks.