netdev - Re: [RFC] Could we avoid touching dst->refcount in some cases ?

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: <20081124.153954.215777060.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:39:54 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Could we avoid touching dst->refcount in some cases ?

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:14:29 +0100

> So maybe we could make ip_append_data() (or its callers) a
> litle bit smarter, avoiding increment/decrement if possible.

These ideas are interesting but hard to make work.

I think the receive path has more chance of getting gains
from this, to be honest.

One third (effectively) of TCP stream packets are ACKs and
freed immediately.  This means that the looked up route does
not escape the packet receive path.  So we could elide the
counter increment in that case.

In fact, once we queue even TCP data, there is no need for
that cached skb->dst route any longer.

So pretty much all TCP packets could avoid the dst refcounting
on receive.
--
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