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  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]
Date:	Sun, 2 Nov 2014 16:09:22 +0200
From:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	Shani Michaeli <shanim@...lanox.com>,
	Ido Shamay <idos@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/8] net/mlx4_en: Remove redundant code from
 RX/GRO path

On 10/31/2014 5:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 16:00 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 01:25 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 18:06 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>>>> Remove the code which goes through napi_gro_frags() on the RX path,
>>>>>> use only napi_gro_receive().
>>>>> Hmpff... napi_gro_frags() should be faster. Have you benchmarked this ?
>>>>
>>>> yep we did, napi_gro_frags() was somehow better for single stream. Do
>>>> you think we need to do it the other way around, e.g converge to use napi_gro_frags()?
>>> napi_gro_frags() is faster because the napi->skb is reused fast (not
>>> going through kfree_skb()/alloc_skb() for every fragment)
>> I see. Is this a strong vote to convert the code to use napi_gro_frags
>> on it's usual track?
> I don't know yet. In some cases, actually slowing down the rx path can
> help by building bigger GRO packets. But instead of inserting delays,
> we can simply force napi to be run another time, with a nanosec based
> timer.
>
> I've tested this kind of heuristic :
>
>         /* If some packets are waiting in GRO engine and timeout is not expired,
>          * reschedule a NAPI poll. We allow servicing other softirqs
>          * before repoll, we do not rearm CQ.
>          */
>         if (rx_nsecs && napi->gro_list && !need_resched()) {
>                 u64 now = local_clock();
>                 unsigned long flags;
>
>                 /* If we got packets in this round, restart timeout */
>                 if (done)
>                         cq->tstart = now;
>                 else if (now - cq->tstart >= (u64)rx_nsecs)
>                         goto complete;
>
>                 /* Since we might need one skb very soon, build it now */
>                 napi_get_frags(napi);
>
>                 local_irq_save(flags);
>                 list_del(&napi->poll_list);
>                 __napi_schedule_irqoff(napi);
>                 local_irq_restore(flags);
>
>          } else {
> complete:
>                  napi_complete(napi);
>                  mlx4_en_arm_cq(priv, cq);
>          }
> 	return done;

Hi Eric,

For the time being, I'll drop from this series thischange and the 
following ones which depend on it. So can pick in the earlier patches of 
the series, and investigate in parallel thevarious optionsw.r.t GRO here.

Or.




--
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