netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sock_rps_record

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: <ba8de10b-5616-0fc2-6556-5029e613d498@solarflare.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:20:44 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sock_rps_record_flow() is for connected
 sockets

On 07/12/16 07:57, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> We have some experimental patches to implement GRO for plain UDP
> connected sockets, using frag_list to preserve the individual skb len,
> and deliver the packet to user space individually. With that I got
> ~3mpps with a single queue/user space sink - before the recent udp
> improvements.
You might want to benchmark these against my batched receive patches
from a while ago[1], both seem to have broadly the same objective.
In my benchmarking (obviously with different hardware) I was using
multiple sink processes, but all (processes and irqs) on a single
core; the unpatched kernel was getting ~5Mpps.  Then with my patches
I was getting ~6.4Mpps.  (Limitations of my test scripts meant that
having a single sink process meant also having a single source
process, in which case I was TX limited to ~3Mpps, and using about
60% CPU on the RX side.)

Let me know if you're interested in doing this comparison; if so I'll
post updated patches against net-next.  My own attempts to benchmark
them more have been held up by lack of time and not really knowing
what constitutes a realistic netfilter setup.
Of course if you're using a device other than sfc you'll need to add
your own equivalent of patch #2 to call the netif_receive_skb_list()
entry point from the driver.

-Ed

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg373769.html