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  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]
Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 21:48:58 +0100
From:   Pavel Begunkov <>
To:     Paolo Abeni <>,,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     David Ahern <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/10] UDP/IPv6 refactoring

On 5/16/22 14:48, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hello,
> On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 16:26 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Refactor UDP/IPv6 and especially udpv6_sendmsg() paths. The end result looks
>> cleaner than it was before and the series also removes a bunch of instructions
>> and other overhead from the hot path positively affecting performance.
>> Testing over dummy netdev with 16 byte packets yields 2240481 tx/s,
>> comparing to 2203417 tx/s previously, which is around +1.6%
> I personally feel that some patches in this series have a relevant
> chance of introducing functional regressions and e.g. syzbot will not
> help to catch them. That risk is IMHO relevant considered that the
> performance gain here looks quite limited.

I can't say I agree with that. First, I do think the code is much
cleaner having just one block checking corking instead of a couple
of random ifs in different places. Same for sin6. Not to mention
negative line count.

Also, assuming this 1.6% translates to ~0.5-1% with fast NICs, that's
still huge, especially when we get >5GB/s in single core zc tests b/w

If maintainers are not merging it, I think I'll delay the series until
I get another batch of planned optimisations implemented on top.

> There are a few individual changes that IMHO looks like nice cleanup
> e.g. patch 5, 6, 8, 9 and possibly even patch 1.
> I suggest to reduce the patchset scope to them.

Pavel Begunkov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists