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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:17:07 +0200
From:	"Johann Baudy" <johaahn@...il.com>
To:	"Evgeniy Polyakov" <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Fwd: Packet mmap: TX RING and zero copy

Hi Evgeniy,

> vmsplice() can be slow, try to inject header via usual send() call, or
> better do not use it at all for testing.
>
vmsplice() is short in comparison to splice()  ~ 200us !
This was just to show you that even this vmpslice duration of 80us
that is needed for each packet is too long to send only 1 packet.
I really need a mechanism that allow sending of ~ 40 packets of 7200K
in one system call to keep some cpu ressources to do other things.
(Not spending time in kernel layers :))

>
> Amount of gettimofday() and friends is excessive, but it can be a trace
> tool itself.
I've only observed a small performance between with and without
gettimeofday().(< 1MB/s). I've used it to do a light FTRACE and to get
duration of vmsplice.

> kill_fasync() also took too much time (top CPU user
> is at bottom I suppose?), do you use SIGIO? Also vma traveling and page
> checking is not what will be done in network code and your project, so
> it also adds an overhead.

Between kill_fasync() sys_gettimeofday() , I thought that we returned
to user space.
No SIGIO. But FYI, I use PREEMPT_RT patch.

>Please try without vmsplice() at all, usual
> splice()/sendfile() _has_ to saturate the link, otherwise we have a
> serious problem.

I've already tried sendfile only with standard TCP/UDP socket. I've
not saturated the link.
Around same bitrate.

>
> Not to distract you from the project, but you still can do the same with
> existing methods and smaller amount of work. But I should be last saying
> that creating tricky hacks to implement the idea should be abandoned in
> favour of the standards (even slow) methods :)
>
I understand your point that common solution are always better than
multiple hacks.
But I think that I have the same motivation than packet mmap IO developers .
This feature was introduced to make the capture process of raw socket
efficient. I just want to reach the same goal for transmission using
same mechanism.
We use those features only if we need performance at the driver level.

Thanks,
Johann




--
Johann Baudy
johaahn@...il.com



-- 
Johann Baudy
johaahn@...il.com
--
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