问题
This question is the result of two other questions I've asked in the last few days.
I'm creating a new question because I think it's related to the "next step" in my understanding of how to control the flow of my send/receive, something I didn't get a full answer to yet.
The other related questions are:
An IOCP documentation interpretation question - buffer ownership ambiguity
Non-blocking TCP buffer issues
In summary, I'm using Windows I/O Completion Ports.
I have several threads that process notifications from the completion port.
I believe the question is platform-independent and would have the same answer as if to do the same thing on a *nix, *BSD, Solaris system.
So, I need to have my own flow control system. Fine.
So I send send and send, a lot. How do I know when to start queueing the sends, as the receiver side is limited to X amount?
Let's take an example (closest thing to my question): FTP protocol.
I have two servers; One is on a 100Mb link and the other is on a 10Mb link.
I order the 100Mb one to send to the other one (the 10Mb linked one) a 1GB file. It finishes with an average transfer rate of 1.25MB/s.
How did the sender (the 100Mb linked one) knew when to hold the sending, so the slower one wouldn't be flooded? (In this case the "to-be-sent" queue is the actual file on the hard-disk).
Another way to ask this:
Can I get a "hold-your-sendings" notification from the remote side? Is it built-in in TCP or the so called "reliable network protocol" needs me to do so?
I could of course limit my sendings to a fixed number of bytes but that simply doesn't sound right to me.
Again, I have a loop with many sends to a remote server, and at some point, within that loop I'll have to determine if I should queue that send or I can pass it on to the transport layer (TCP).
How do I do that? What would you do? Of course that when I get a completion notification from IOCP that the send was done I'll issue other pending sends, that's clear.
Another design question related to this:
Since I am to use a custom buffers with a send queue, and these buffers are being freed to be reused (thus not using the "delete" keyword) when a "send-done" notification has been arrived, I'll have to use a mutual exlusion on that buffer pool.
Using a mutex slows things down, so I've been thinking; Why not have each thread have its own buffers pool, thus accessing it , at least when getting the required buffers for a send operation, will require no mutex, because it belongs to that thread only.
The buffers pool is located at the thread local storage (TLS) level.
No mutual pool implies no lock needed, implies faster operations BUT also implies more memory used by the app, because even if one thread already allocated 1000 buffers, the other one that is sending right now and need 1000 buffers to send something will need to allocated these to its own.
Another issue:
Say I have buffers A, B, C in the "to-be-sent" queue.
Then I get a completion notification that tells me that the receiver got 10 out of 15 bytes. Should I re-send from the relative offset of the buffer, or will TCP handle it for me, i.e complete the sending? And if I should, can I be assured that this buffer is the "next-to-be-sent" one in the queue or could it be buffer B for example?
This is a long question and I hope none got hurt (:
I'd loveeee to see someone takes the time to answer here. I promise I'll double-vote for him! (:
Thank you all!
回答1:
Firstly: I'd ask this as separate questions. You're more likely to get answers that way.
I've spoken about most of this on my blog: http://www.lenholgate.com but then since you've already emailed me to say that you read my blog you know that...
The TCP flow control issue is such that since you are posting asynchronous writes and these each use resources until they complete (see here). During the time that the write is pending there are various resource usage issues to be aware of and the use of your data buffer is the least important of them; you'll also use up some non-paged pool which is a finite resource (though there is much more available in Vista and later than previous operating systems), you'll also be locking pages in memory for the duration of the write and there's a limit to the total number of pages that the OS can lock. Note that both the non-paged pool usage and page locking issues aren't something that's documented very well anywhere, but you'll start seeing writes fail with ENOBUFS once you hit them.
Due to these issues it's not wise to have an uncontrolled number of writes pending. If you are sending a large amount of data and you have a no application level flow control then you need to be aware that if you send data faster than it can be processed by the other end of the connection, or faster than the link speed, then you will begin to use up lots and lots of the above resources as your writes take longer to complete due to TCP flow control and windowing issues. You don't get these problems with blocking socket code as the write calls simply block when the TCP stack can't write any more due to flow control issues; with async writes the writes complete and are then pending. With blocking code the blocking deals with your flow control for you; with async writes you could continue to loop and more and more data which is all just waiting to be sent by the TCP stack...
Anyway, because of this, with async I/O on Windows you should ALWAYS have some form of explicit flow control. So, you either add application level flow control to your protocol, using an ACK, perhaps, so that you know when the data has reached the other side and only allow a certain amount to be outstanding at any one time OR if you cant add to the application level protocol, you can drive things by using your write completions. The trick is to allow a certain number of outstanding write completions per connection and to queue the data (or just don't generate it) once you have reached your limit. Then as each write completes you can generate a new write....
Your question about pooling the data buffers is, IMHO, premature optimisation on your part right now. Get to the point where your system is working properly and you have profiled your system and found that the contention on your buffer pool is the most important hot spot and THEN address it. I found that per thread buffer pools didn't work so well as the distribution of allocations and frees across threads tends not to be as balanced as you'd need to that to work. I've spoken about this more on my blog: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2010/05/performance-comparisons-for-recent-code-changes.html
Your question about partial write completions (you send 100 bytes and the completion comes back and says that you have only sent 95) isn't really a problem in practice IMHO. If you get to this position and have more than the one outstanding write then there's nothing you can do, the subsequent writes may well work and you'll have bytes missing from what you expected to send; BUT a) I've never seen this happen unless you have already hit the resource problems that I detail above and b) there's nothing you can do if you have already posted more writes on that connection so simply abort the connection - note that this is why I always profile my networking systems on the hardware that they will run on and I tend to place limits in MY code to prevent the OS resource limits ever being reached (bad drivers on pre Vista operating systems often blue screen the box if they can't get non paged pool so you can bring a box down if you don't pay careful attention to these details).
Separate questions next time, please.
回答2:
Q1. Most APIs will give you "write is possible" event, after you last wrote and writing is available again (can happen immediately if you failed to fill major part of send buffer with the last send).
With completion port, it will arrive just as "new data" event. Think of new data as "read Ok", so there's also a "write ok" event. Names differ between the APIs.
Q2. If a kernel mode transition for mutex acquisition per chunk of data hurts you, I recommend rethinking what you are doing. It takes 3 microseconds at most, while your thread scheduler slice may be as big as 60 milliseconds on windows.
It may hurt in extreme cases. If you think you are programming extreme communications, please ask again, and I promise to tell you all about it.
回答3:
To address your question about when it knew to slow down, you seem to lack an understanding of TCP congestion mechanisms. "Slow start" is what you're talking about, but it's not quite how you've worded it. Slow start is exactly that -- starts off slow, and gets faster, up to as fast as the other end is willing to go, wire line speed, whatever.
With respect to the rest of your question, Pavel's answer should suffice.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3034047/limiting-tcp-sends-with-a-to-be-sent-queue-and-other-design-issues