netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] net/sched: Add hardware specific counters to TC actions

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:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:02:44 +0200
From:   "Eelco Chaudron" <echaudro@...hat.com>
To:     "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        jiri@...nulli.us, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        "Marcelo Ricardo Leitner" <mleitner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net/sched: Add hardware specific counters to TC
 actions

On 11 Aug 2018, at 21:06, David Miller wrote:

> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 20:26:08 -0700
>
>> It is not immediately clear why this is needed.  The memory and
>> updating two sets of counters won't come for free, so perhaps a
>> stronger justification than troubleshooting is due? :S
>>
>> Netdev has counters for fallback vs forwarded traffic, so you'd know
>> that traffic hits the SW datapath, plus the rules which are in_hw 
>> will
>> most likely not match as of today for flower (assuming correctness).

I strongly believe that these counters are a requirement for a mixed 
software/hardware (flow) based forwarding environment. The global 
counters will not help much here as you might have chosen to have 
certain traffic forwarded by software.

These counters are probably the only option you have to figure out why 
forwarding is not as fast as expected, and you want to blame the TC 
offload NIC.

>> I'm slightly concerned about potential performance impact, would you
>> be able to share some numbers for non-trivial number of flows (100k
>> active?)?
>
> Agreed, features used for diagnostics cannot have a harmful penalty 
> for
> fast path performance.

Fast path performance is not affected as these counters are not 
incremented there. They are only incremented by the nic driver when they 
gather their statistics from hardware.

However, the flow creation is effected, as this is where the extra 
memory gets allocated. I had done some 40K flow tests before and did not 
see any noticeable change in flow insertion performance. As requested by 
Jakub I did it again for 100K (and threw a Netronome blade in the mix 
;). I used Marcelo’s test tool, 
https://github.com/marceloleitner/perf-flower.git.

Here are the numbers (time in seconds) for 10 runs in sorted order:

+-------------+----------------+
| Base_kernel | Change_applied |
+-------------+----------------+
|    5.684019 |       5.656388 |
|    5.699658 |       5.674974 |
|    5.725220 |       5.722107 |
|    5.739285 |       5.839855 |
|    5.748088 |       5.865238 |
|    5.766231 |       5.873913 |
|    5.842264 |       5.909259 |
|    5.902202 |       5.912685 |
|    5.905391 |       5.947138 |
|    6.032997 |       5.997779 |
+-------------+----------------+

I guess the deviation is in the userspace part, which is where in real 
life flows get added anyway.

Let me know if more is unclear.

//Eelco