| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:33 +0100 From: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it> To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> CC: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>, Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>, "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/netfront: improve truesize tracking Monday, January 7, 2013, 2:41:03 PM, you wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 20:40 +0000, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >> Friday, December 21, 2012, 7:33:43 PM, you wrote: >> >> > I'm guessing that trusize checks matter more on the "inbound" path than >> > the outbound path? If that is indeed the case, then instead of, or in >> > addition to using the -s option to set the local (netperf side) socket >> > buffer size, you should use a -S option to set the remote (netserver >> > side) socket buffer size. >> >> > happy benchmarking, >> >> > rick jones >> >> >> OK, ran them with -S as well: > Are these all from domU -> dom0 ? Did you try traffic going the other > way? Yes running netperf in domU and netserver in dom0, but i must say i'm far from a netperf expert. So i don't even know for sure if the tests i ran give a good picture. >> "current" is with netfront as is (skb->truesize += skb->data_len - RX_COPY_THRESHOLD;) >> "patched" is with IanC's latest patch (skb->truesize += PAGE_SIZE * skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;) skb->>truesize += skb->data_len - NETFRONT_SKB_CB(skb)->pull_to; is > probably more interesting to compare against since we know the current > one is buggy. Will see if i can run against that as well, although i thought Eric said to prefer the "skb->truesize += PAGE_SIZE * skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;" > These number generally look good, largely +/- 1%, often in favour of the > updated code but these two stand out as worrying: >> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : +/-2.500% @ 95% conf. : demo >> Recv Send Send >> Socket Socket Message Elapsed >> Size Size Size Time Throughput >> bytes bytes bytes secs. KBytes/sec >> >> current 18000 16384 1432 60.00 37559.94 >> patched 18000 16384 1432 60.00 40630.66 >> >> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : +/-2.500% @ 95% conf. : demo >> Recv Send Send >> Socket Socket Message Elapsed >> Size Size Size Time Throughput >> bytes bytes bytes secs. KBytes/sec >> >> current 28000 16384 16384 60.00 103766.68 >> patched 28000 16384 16384 60.00 93277.98 > That's at least a 10% slow down in both cases. >> UDP UNIDIRECTIONAL SEND TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) port 0 AF_INET : +/-2.500% @ 95% conf. : demo >> Socket Message Elapsed Messages >> Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput >> bytes bytes secs # # KBytes/sec >> >> current 212992 65507 60.00 252586 0 269305.73 >> current 2280 60.00 229371 244553.96 >> patched 212992 65507 60.00 256209 0 273168.32 >> patched 2280 60.00 201670 215019.54 > The recv numbers here aren't too pleasing either. > However, given that this fixes a real issue which people are seeing I'd > be inclined to go with it, at least for now. > Ian. -- 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