netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/3] net: batched receive in GRO path

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a7456e50-13f1-7ffb-9913-cb7f9bc2312d@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:20:51 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com" <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/3] net: batched receive in GRO path



On 8/12/19 7:51 PM, Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 8:32 PM
>> To: Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>
>> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>;
>> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>; linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/3] net: batched receive in GRO path
>>
>> On 09/08/2019 18:14, Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu wrote:
>>> Hi Edward,
>>>
>>> I'm probably missing a lot of context here, but is there a reason
>>> this change targets only the napi_gro_frags() path and not the
>>> napi_gro_receive() one?
>>> I'm trying to understand what drivers that don't call napi_gro_frags()
>>> should do in order to benefit from this batching feature.
>> The sfc driver (which is what I have lots of hardware for, so I can
>>  test it) uses napi_gro_frags().
>> It should be possible to do a similar patch to napi_gro_receive(),
>>  if someone wants to put in the effort of writing and testing it.
> 
> Rather tricky, since I'm not really familiar with GRO internals and
> probably don't understand all the implications of such a change :-/
> Any pointers to what I should pay attention to/sensitive areas that
> need extra care?
> 
>> However, there are many more callers, so more effort required to
>>  make sure none of them care whether the return value is GRO_DROP
>>  or GRO_NORMAL (since the listified version cannot give that
>>  indication).
> 
> At a quick glance, there's only one driver that looks at the return
> value of napi_gro_receive (drivers/net/ethernet/socionext/netsec.c),
> and it only updates interface stats based on it.
> 
>> Also, the guidance from Eric is that drivers seeking high performance
>>  should use napi_gro_frags(), as this allows GRO to recycle the SKB.
> 
> But this guidance is for GRO-able frames only, right? If I try to use
> napi_gro_frags() indiscriminately on the Rx path, I get a big
> performance penalty in some cases - e.g. forwarding of non-TCP
> single buffer frames.

How big is big ?

You can not win all the time.

Some design (or optimizations) are for the most common case,
they might hurt some other use cases.

> 
> On the other hand, Eric shot down my attempt to differentiate between
> TCP and non-TCP frames inside the driver (see 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1135817/#2222236), so I'm not
> really sure what's the recommended approach here?

If GRO is not good enough for non-TCP buffer frames, please make the change in GRO,
or document that disabling GRO might help some setups.

We do not want each driver to implement their own logic that are a
maintenance nightmare.

GRO can aggregate non-TCP frames (say if you add any encapsulation over TCP),
with a very significant gain, so detecting if an incoming frame is a 'TCP packet'
in the driver would be a serious problem if the traffic is 100% SIT for example.