netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

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, 23 May 2018 21:02:30 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:49:18AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> I just hacked up a sendmmsg extension to the benchmark to verify.
> Indeed that does not have nearly the same benefit as GSO:
> 
> udp tx:    976 MB/s   695394 calls/s  16557 msg/s
> 
> This matches the numbers seen from TCP without TSO and GSO.
> That also has few system calls, but observes per MTU stack traversal.

Reviving this old thread because it's the only place I saw sendmmsg
being mentioned.

sendmmsg shouldn't be considered as an alternative, but rather as a
complement. Then instead of the application building one large request
and request the stack to fragment it, it could simply build the
sendmmsg request and the stack would group the mmsg into a gso skb. It
seems more natural to the application. But well, both (sendmmsg and
the option to fragment) are Linux-specific..

For that we need sendmmsg to do something smarter than doing several
sendmsg calls, yes.