netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: policy: remove pcpu policy cache

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: <20180625144229.ca7gklc56tmtllsd@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:42:29 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: policy: remove pcpu policy cache

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 01:57:53PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Kristian Evensen says:
>   In a project I am involved in, we are running ipsec (Strongswan) on
>   different mt7621-based routers. Each router is configured as an
>   initiator and has around ~30 tunnels to different responders (running
>   on misc. devices). Before the flow cache was removed (kernel 4.9), we
>   got a combined throughput of around 70Mbit/s for all tunnels on one
>   router. However, we recently switched to kernel 4.14 (4.14.48), and
>   the total throughput is somewhere around 57Mbit/s (best-case). I.e., a
>   drop of around 20%. Reverting the flow cache removal restores, as
>   expected, performance levels to that of kernel 4.9.
> 
> When pcpu xdst exists, it has to be validated first before it can be
> used.
> 
> A negative hit thus increases cost vs. no-cache.
> 
> As number of tunnels increases, hit rate decreases so this pcpu caching
> isn't a viable strategy.
> 
> Furthermore, the xdst cache also needs to run with BH off, so when
> removing this the bh disable/enable pairs can be removed too.
> 
> Kristian tested a 4.14.y backport of this change and reported
> increased performance:
> 
>   In our tests, the throughput reduction has been reduced from around -20%
>   to -5%. We also see that the overall throughput is independent of the
>   number of tunnels, while before the throughput was reduced as the number
>   of tunnels increased.
> 
> Reported-by: Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>

Can you please rebase this to ipsec-next current?

It does not apply cleanly after the merge of the
xfrm interface patches.

Thanks!