netdev - Re: [net-next 00/10][pull request] 10GbE Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates 2018-01-23

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180124.142505.18939180273833794.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:25:05 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 00/10][pull request] 10GbE Intel Wired LAN Driver
 Updates 2018-01-23

From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:59:23 -0800

> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Kirsher
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
>> This series contains updates to ixgbe only.
>>
>> Shannon Nelson provides an implementation of the ipsec hardware offload
>> feature for the ixgbe driver for these devices: x540, x550, 82599.
>>
>> The ixgbe NICs support ipsec offload for 1024 Rx and 1024 Tx Security
>> Associations (SAs), using up to 128 inbound IP addresses, and using the
>> rfc4106(gcm(aes)) encryption.  This code does not yet support checksum
>> offload, or TSO in conjunction with the ipsec offload - those will be
>> added in the future.
>>
>> This code shows improvements in both packet throughput and CPU utilization.
>> For example, here are some quicky numbers that show the magnitude of the
>> performance gain on a single run of "iperf -c <dest>" with the ipsec
>> offload on both ends of a point-to-point connection:
>>
>>         9.4 Gbps - normal case
>>         7.6 Gbps - ipsec with offload
>>         343 Mbps - ipsec no offload
> 
> Dave, looks like you pulled this in as well, correct?  I did not
> receive notification.

My bad, I thought I did say I pulled it. :-)