netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] tcp: remove non GSO code

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

Message-ID: <34197c670230376051d3830704f18e85@natalenko.name>
Date:   Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:32:58 +0100
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] tcp: remove non GSO code

Hi.

19.02.2018 20:56, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Switching TCP to GSO mode, relying on core networking layers
> to perform eventual adaptation for dumb devices was overdue.
> 
> 1) Most TCP developments are done with TSO in mind.
> 2) Less high-resolution timers needs to be armed for TCP-pacing
> 3) GSO can benefit of xmit_more hint
> 4) Receiver GRO is more effective (as if TSO was used for real on 
> sender)
>    -> less ACK packets and overhead.
> 5) Write queues have less overhead (one skb holds about 64KB of 
> payload)
> 6) SACK coalescing just works. (no payload in skb->head)
> 7) rtx rb-tree contains less packets, SACK is cheaper.
> 8) Removal of legacy code. Less maintenance hassles.
> 
> Note that I have left the sendpage/zerocopy paths, but they probably 
> can
> benefit from the same strategy.
> 
> Thanks to Oleksandr Natalenko for reporting a performance issue for
> BBR/fq_codel,
> which was the main reason I worked on this patch series.

Thanks for dealing with this that fast.

Does this mean that the option to optimise internal TCP pacing is still 
an open question?

Oleksandr