netdev - Re: speed regression in udp_lib_lport

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: <49790D3D.8060400@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:20:13 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
CC:	Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: speed regression in udp_lib_lport_inuse()

Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit :
> Hi Eric.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:06:59PM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@...mosbay.com) wrote:
>> Hello Vitaly, thanks for this excellent report.
>>
>> Yes, current code is really not good when all ports are in use :
>>
>> We now have to scan 28232 [1] times long chains of 220 sockets.
>> Thats very long (but at least thread is preemptable)
>>
>> In the past (before patches), only one thread was allowed to run in kernel while scanning
>> udp port table (we had only one global lock udp_hash_lock protecting the whole udp table).
>> This thread was faster because it was not slowed down by other threads.
>> (But the rwlock we used was responsible for starvations of writers if many UDP frames
>> were received)
>  
> I believe problem is in the port searching algorithm, when we
> have exponentially grow of the number of ports to check after random
> selection of the first one. This allows to have small chains but setup
> time will be very long. Not sure if bind chais should be that small
> actually. In the 64k patch, which allows to have more than 64k bound
> sockets per system I store rough amount of bound sockets and when it
> becomes larger than sysctl limit I just randomly select a bundle.
> This works for the bind(0) for the sockets with reuse option though.
> I posted a picture of the bind(0) time for the .28 kernel iirc.
> 
> Or is this a different issue?
> 

Well, this is not exactly the same issue, udp bind() code is slightly different
than tcp. (Probably not so many machines use lot of udp sockets)

Since UDP hash table is really small (128 slots), we can try to allocate UDP ports
chains per chain, instead of port per port, to reduce number of chain lookups.
In tcp, most machines have 64k slots for bind table so this wont help

--
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