netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4: Early TCP socket demux.

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: <20120620.142652.1381681483918504053.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4: Early TCP socket demux.

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:17:56 +0200

> In most routers setups I used, I had to disable GRO, because 64Kbytes
> packets on output path broke the tc setups (SFQ)

Then you speak of bugs and mis-features, rather than real fundamental
disadvantages of using GRO on a router :-)

> netfilter cost was hardly a problem, once correctly done.

But cost is not zero, and if you can divide it by N then you do it.
And GRO is what allows this.

Every demux, lookup, etc. is transaction cost.

Even routing cache lookup with no dst reference, which is _very_
cheap, takes up a serious amount of cpu cycles.  Enough that we think
early demux is worth it, right?

And such a routing cache lookup is significantly cheaper than a trip
down into netfilter.
--
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