netdev - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices?

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: <20100115.003636.199394610.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:36:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	krkumar2@...ibm.com
Cc:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Optimize TCP sendmsg in favour of fast devices?

From: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:03:52 +0530

> From: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
> 
> Remove inline skb data in tcp_sendmsg(). For the few devices that
> don't support NETIF_F_SG, dev_queue_xmit will call skb_linearize,
> and pass the penalty to those slow devices (the following drivers
> do not support NETIF_F_SG: 8139cp.c, amd8111e.c, dl2k.c, dm9000.c,
> dnet.c, ethoc.c, ibmveth.c, ioc3-eth.c, macb.c, ps3_gelic_net.c,
> r8169.c, rionet.c, spider_net.c, tsi108_eth.c, veth.c,
> via-velocity.c, atlx/atl2.c, bonding/bond_main.c, can/dev.c,
> cris/eth_v10.c).

I was really surprised to see r8169.c in that list.

It even has all the code in it's ->ndo_start_xmit() method
to build fragments properly and handle segmented SKBs, it
simply doesn't set NETIF_F_SG in dev->features for whatever
reason.

Bonding it on your list, but it does indeed support NETIF_F_SG
as long as all of it's slaves do.  See bond_compute_features()
and how it uses netdev_increment_features() over the slaves.

Anyways...

> This patch does not affect devices that support SG but turn off
> via ethtool after register_netdev.
> 
> I ran the following test cases with iperf - #threads: 1 4 8 16 32
> 64 128 192 256, I/O sizes: 256 4K 16K 64K, each test case runs for
> 1 minute, repeat 5 iterations. Total test run time is 6 hours.
> System is 4-proc Opteron, with a Chelsio 10gbps NIC. Results (BW
> figures are the aggregate across 5 iterations in mbps):
 ...
> Please review if the idea is acceptable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar <krkumar2@...ibm.com>

So how bad does it kill performance for a chip that doesn't
support NETIF_F_SG?

That's what people will complain about if this goes in.

--
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