netdev - Re: [PATCH] - vxlan: gro not effective for intel 82599

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]

Date:	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:44:29 -0700
From:	Ramu Ramamurthy <sramamur@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	pradeeps@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, J Kidambi <jkidambi@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - vxlan: gro not effective for intel 82599

On 2015-06-26 12:59, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Ramu Ramamurthy
> <sramamur@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-06-26 11:04, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I am testing the simplest configuration which has 1 TCP flow 
>>>> generated by
>>>> iperf from
>>>> a VM connected to a linux bridge with a vxlan tunnel interface. The 
>>>> 10G
>>>> nic
>>>> (82599 ES) has
>>>> multiple receive queues, but in this simple test, it is likely 
>>>> immaterial
>>>> (because, the
>>>> tuple on which it hashes would be fixed). The real difference in
>>>> performance
>>>> appears to
>>>> be whether or not vxlan gro is performed by software.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please do "ethtool -k vxlan0" of whatever interface is for vxlan.
>>> Ensure GRO is "on", if not enable it on the interface by "ethtool _k
>>> vxlan0 gro on". Run iperf and to tcpdump on the vxlan interface to
>>> verify GRO is being done. If we are seeing performance degradation
>>> when GRO is being done at tunnel versus device that would be a
>>> different problem than no GRO being done at all.
>> 
>> 
>> Heres more details on the test.
>> 
>> gro is "on" on the device and the tunnel. tcpdump on the vxlan 
>> interface
>> show un-aggregated packets
>> 
>> [root@...u1 tracing]# tcpdump -i vxlan0
>> <snip>
>> ptions [nop,nop,TS val 1972850548 ecr 193703], length 1398
>> 14:14:38.911955 IP 1.1.1.21.44134 > 1.1.1.11.commplex-link: Flags [.], 
>> seq
>> 224921449:224922847, ack 1, win 221, options [nop,nop,TS val 
>> 1972850548 ecr
> 
> Looks like GRO was never implemented for vxlan tunnels. The driver is
> simply calling netif_rx instead of using the GRO cells infrastructure.
> geneve is doing the same thing. For other tunnels which are used in
> foo-over-udp (GRE, IPIP, SIT) ip_tunnel_rcv is called which in turn
> calls gro_cells_receive.

Can we remove or (relax) the checksum checks in udp_gro_receive() which 
are immediately
preventing the vxlan_gro callbacks from being called from 
udp_gro_receive() ?
vxlan driver is registering these offloads callbacks, and I can see them 
work when i
relax the following checksum checks.

	if (NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->udp_mark ||
	    (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_PARTIAL &&      <<<<  remove or relax 
these checks
	     NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->csum_cnt == 0 &&         <<<<  which are 
directly
	     !NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->csum_valid))            <<<<  dependent on nic 
capability
		goto out;

Alternatively, can we move these checks to the respective drivers' 
gro_receive() function.

The other changes you suggest (gro_cells) are beyond my understanding.



--
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