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:	Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:55:15 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ben@...s.com
Cc:	w@....eu, jarkao2@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

From: Ben Mansell <ben@...s.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:50:44 +0000

> > From fafe76713523c8e9767805cfdc7b73323d7bf180 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:10:13 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once
> > Currently, in non-blocking mode, tcp_splice_read() returns after
> > splicing one segment regardless of the len argument. This results
> > in low performance and very high overhead due to syscall rate when
> > splicing from interfaces which do not support LRO.
> > The fix simply consists in not breaking out of the loop after the
> > first read. That way, we can read up to the size requested by the
> > caller and still return when there is no data left.
> > Performance has significantly improved with this fix, with the
> > number of calls to splice() divided by about 20, and CPU usage
> > dropped from 100% to 75%.
> > 
> 
> I get similar results with my testing here. Benchmarking an application with this patch shows that more than one packet is being splice()d in at once, as a result I see a doubling in throughput.
> 
> Tested-by: Ben Mansell <ben@...s.com>

I'm not applying this until someone explains to me why
we should remove this test from the splice receive but
keep it in the tcp_recvmsg() code where it has been
essentially forever.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ