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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:39:32 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] tcp: remove non GSO code

On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 10:32 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> 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?

It is not an optimization that is needed, but taking into account that
highres timers can have latencies of ~2 usec or more.

When sending 64KB TSO packets, having extra 2 usec after every ~54 usec
(at 10Gbit) has no big impact, since TCP computes a slightly inflated
pacing rate anyway.

But when sending one MSS/packet every usec, this definitely can
demonstrate a big slowdown.

But the anser is yes, I will take a look at this timer drift.