linux-kernel - Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

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, 11 Oct 2006 23:42:37 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Cc:	Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	openib-general@...nib.org, rolandd@...co.com
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

Quoting r. Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
> O
> > > 
> > > You might want to try ignoring the check in dev.c and testing
> > > to see if there is a performance gain.  It wouldn't be hard to test
> > > a modified version and validate the performance change.
> > 
> > Yes. With my patch, there is a huge performance gain by increasing MTU to 64K.
> > And it seems the only way to do this is by S/G.
> > 
> > > You could even do what I suggested and use skb_checksum_help()
> > > to do inplace checksumming, as a performance test.
> > 
> > I can. But as network algorithmics says (chapter 5)
> > "Since such bus reads are expensive, the CPU might as well piggyback
> > the checksum computation with the copy process".
> > 
> > It speaks about onboard the adapter buffers, but memory bus reads are also much slower
> > than CPU nowdays.  So I think even if this works well in benchmark in real life
> > single copy should better.
> > 
> 
> The other alternative might be to make copy/checksum code smarter about using
> fragments rather than allocating a large buffer. It should avoid second order
> allocations (effective size > PAGESIZE).
 
In my testing, it seems quite smart already - once I declare F_SG and clear F_...CSUM
I start getting properly checksummed packets with lots of s/g fragments.
But I'm not catching the drift - an alternative to what this would be?

-- 
MST
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/