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:	Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hadi@...erus.ca
Cc:	krkumar2@...ibm.com, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, kaber@...sh.net,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, jagana@...ibm.com,
	Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, rick.jones2@...com, xma@...ibm.com,
	gaagaan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, mcarlson@...adcom.com,
	jeff@...zik.org, mchan@...adcom.com, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com, tgraf@...g.ch, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
	sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10 REV5] Implement skb batching and support in
 IPoIB/E1000

From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:01:43 -0400

> I think GSO is still useful on top of this.
> In my patches anything with gso gets put into the batch list and shot
> down the driver. Ive never considered checking whether the nic is TSO
> capable, that may be something worth checking into. The netiron allows
> you to shove upto 128 skbs utilizing one tx descriptor, which makes for
> interesting possibilities.

We're talking past each other, but I'm happy to hear that for
sure your code does the right thing :-)

Right now only TSO capable hardware sets the TSO capable bit,
except perhaps for the XEN netfront driver.

What Herbert and I want to do is basically turn on TSO for
devices that can't do it in hardware, and rely upon the GSO
framework to do the segmenting in software right before we
hit the device.

This only makes sense for devices which can 1) scatter-gather
and 2) checksum on transmit.  Otherwise we make too many
copies and/or passes over the data.

And we can only get the full benefit if we can pass all the
sub-segments down to the driver in one ->hard_start_xmit()
call.

> On a side note: My observation is that with large packets on a very busy
> system; bulk transfer type app, one approaches wire speed; with or
> without batching, the apps are mostly idling (Ive seen upto 90% idle
> time polling at the socket level for write to complete with a really
> busy system). This is the case with or without batching. cpu seems a
> little better with batching. As the aggregation of the apps gets more
> aggressive (achievable by reducing their packet sizes), one can achieve
> improved throughput and reduced cpu utilization. This all with UDP; i am
> still studying tcp. 

UDP apps spraying data tend to naturally batch well and load balance
amongst themselves because each socket fills up to it's socket send
buffer limit, then sleeps, and we then get a stream from the next UDP
socket up to it's limit, and so on and so forth.

UDP is too easy a test case in fact :-)
-
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists