netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/20] tcp: optimizations for linux-5.17

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:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 22:40:40 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/20] tcp: optimizations for linux-5.17

Hello,

On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 15:37 -0500, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:02 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Mostly small improvements in this series.
> > 
> > The notable change is in "defer skb freeing after
> > socket lock is released" in recvmsg() (and RX zerocopy)
> > 
> > The idea is to try to let skb freeing to BH handler,
> > whenever possible, or at least perform the freeing
> > outside of the socket lock section, for much improved
> > performance. This idea can probably be extended
> > to other protocols.
> > 
> >  Tests on a 100Gbit NIC
> >  Max throughput for one TCP_STREAM flow, over 10 runs.
> > 
> >  MTU : 1500  (1428 bytes of TCP payload per MSS)
> >  Before: 55 Gbit
> >  After:  66 Gbit
> > 
> >  MTU : 4096+ (4096 bytes of TCP payload, plus TCP/IPv6 headers)
> >  Before: 82 Gbit
> >  After:  95 Gbit
> 
> Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
> 
> Wow, this is really impressive. I reviewed all the patches and I can't
> point out any issues other than the typo that Arjun has pointed out.
> Thank you Eric!

Possibly there has been some issues with the ML while processing these
patches?!? only an handful of them reached patchwork (and my mailbox :)

(/me was just curious about the code ;)

Cheers,

Paolo