netdev - Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits

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]

Message-ID: <464370BA.3020907@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 15:21:30 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To:	Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>
Cc:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>,
	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits

Ian McDonald wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com> wrote:
>> >> May be for TCP?  What about other protocols?
>> >
>> > There are other protocols?-)  True, UDP, and I suppose certain modes of
>> > SCTP might be sending streams of small packets, as might TCP with
>> > TCP_NODELAY set.
>> >
>> > Do they often queue-up outside the driver?
>>
>> Not sure if DCCP might fall into this category as well...
>>
> Yes DCCP definitely can queue outside the driver.
> 
>> I think the idea of this patch is gather some number of these small
>> packets and
>> shove them at the driver in one go instead of each small packet at a
>> time.
>>
>> I might be helpful, but reserve judgment till I see more numbers.
>>
>> -vlad
> 
> As I see this proposed patch it is about reducing the number of "task
> switches" between the driver and the protocol. I use task switch in
> speech marks as it isn't really as is in the kernel. So in other words
> we are hoping that spending more time in each area would keep the
> cache hot and work to be done if locks held. This of course requires
> that the complexity added doesn't outweigh the gains - otherwise you
> could end up in a worse scenario where the driver doesn't send packets
> because the protocol is busy linking them.
> 
> As far as I can tell you're not combining packets?? This would
> definitely break UDP/DCCP which are datagram based.

If it's combining packets, it would break a lot of other things as well.

The proposed usage seems to be to link packets together into a chain
and give the whole chain to the driver, instead of handing down one packet
at a time.

The win might be biggest on a system were a lot of applications send a lot of
small packets.  Some number will aggregate in the prio queue and then get shoved
into a driver in one go.

But...  this is all conjecture until we see the code.

-vlad
-
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