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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 21:48:58 +0100 From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org 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 servers. 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