netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] rfs: added /proc/sys/net/core/rps_allow

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]

Message-ID: <20220628101620.75c2941b@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:16:25 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     James Yonan <james@...nvpn.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, therbert@...gle.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] rfs: added /proc/sys/net/core/rps_allow_ooo
 flag to tweak flow alg

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 23:17:54 -0600 James Yonan wrote:
> rps_allow_ooo (0|1, default=0) -- if set to 1, allow RFS (receive flow
> steering) to move a flow to a new CPU even if the old CPU queue has
> pending packets.  Note that this can result in packets being delivered
> out-of-order.  If set to 0 (the default), the previous behavior is
> retained, where flows will not be moved as long as pending packets remain.
> 
> The motivation for this patch is that while it's good to prevent
> out-of-order packets, the current RFS logic requires that all previous
> packets for the flow have been dequeued before an RFS CPU switch is made,
> so as to preserve in-order delivery.  In some cases, on links with heavy
> VPN traffic, we have observed that this requirement is too onerous, and
> that it prevents an RFS CPU switch from occurring within a reasonable time
> frame if heavy traffic causes the old CPU queue to never fully drain.
> 
> So rps_allow_ooo allows the user to select the tradeoff between a more
> aggressive RFS steering policy that may reorder packets on a CPU switch
> event (rps_allow_ooo=1) vs. one that prioritizes in-order delivery
> (rps_allow_ooo=0).

BTW please see:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220628051754.365238-1-james@openvpn.net/

Y'all should work together.