netdev - Re: [PATCH] myr10ge: again fix lro_gen

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:48:11 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, brice@...i.com,
	sgruszka@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] myr10ge: again fix lro_gen_skb() alignment

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 03:19:14PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> So to compare inet_lro and GRO, I'm binding the netserver and device IRQ
> to the same CPU.  When I do this, that CPU is saturated and GRO is
> roughly 17% slower than inet_lro.  For comparison, here are netperf
> results from a fast peer sending to my weak machine (AMD Athlon(tm) 64
> X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+, 2GHz).  First inet_lro:
>
> Recv   Send    Send                          Utilization       Service  
> Demand
> Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed              Send     Recv     Send    Recv
> Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput  local    remote   local  
> remote
> bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/s  % S      % S      us/KB   us/KB
>
>  87380  65536  65536    60.02      6631.52   12.45    50.10    0.308  
> 1.238
>
> And now GRO:
>  87380  65536  65536    60.01      5488.99   9.79     50.00    0.292  
> 1.492

I was sure I had tested my case with the IRQs bound (using a cxgb3),
but when I tried it again today GRO was indeed slower (8G vs. 9.4G)!
I fiddled with it all day and couldn't figure out why this was
so.  We weren't spending any more time in the GRO code than LRO,
and in fact we were aggregating more packets with GRO (700k segments
instead of 900k segments).  GRO was also sending a lot less ACKs
than LRO.

It finally dawned on me that my sender had been upgraded from 2.6.18
to 2.6.30-rc1.  Indeed, rebooting into 2.6.18 seems to restore
the balance between GRO and LRO.  I wonder if the ACK reduction
has anything to do with this.

Hopefully tomorrow I'll get my hands onto a myricom and try to
replicate your problem.

In the mean time, can you see if there is any disparity in the
number of aggregated segments and ACKs between GRO and LRO?
netstat -s should be sufficient to measure this (TCP segments
received and sent).

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html