[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWUOuwaUrwkU9ywcqTK6aqQn6yNESmR3fgz6VMhwAnQdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:39:37 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: md5: use kmalloc() backed scratch areas
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 09:41 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Overall, it looks like there's overhead of something like 50ns for
>> each ahash invocation vs the shash equivalent. It's not huge, but
>> it's there. (This is cache-hot. I bet it's considerably worse if
>> cache-cold, because ahash will require a lot more code cache lines as
>> well as the extra cache lines involved in the scatterlist and whatever
>> arch stuff is needed to map back and forth between virtual and
>> physical addresses.
>
> I am kind of mystified seeing someone caring about TCP MD5, other than
> just making sure it wont crash the host when it needs to be used ;)
>
> The real useful work would be to use a jump label so that we can avoid
> spending cycles for non TCP MD5 sessions, when a host never had to use
> any MD5 negotiation.
>
>
>
I don't care about TCP MD5 performance at all. Ease of maintenance is
nice, though, and maybe there are other places in the kernel where
performance does matter.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists