netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

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: <20220822093304.7ddc5d35@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:33:04 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        ipsec-devel <devel@...ux-ipsec.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload
 configuration

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:54:42 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:41:05AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:53:56AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> > > Yup, that's what I thought you'd say. Can't argue with that use case 
> > > if Steffen is satisfied with the technical aspects.  
> > 
> > Yes, everything that can help to overcome the performance problems
> > can help and I'm interested in this type of offload. But we need to
> > make sure the API is usable by the whole community, so I don't
> > want an API for some special case one of the NIC vendors is
> > interested in.  
> 
> BTW, we have a performance data, I planned to send it as part of cover
> letter for v3, but it is worth to share it now.
> 
>  ================================================================================
>  Performance results:
> 
>  TCP multi-stream, using iperf3 instance per-CPU.
>  +----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
>  |                      | 1 CPU  | 2 CPUs | 4 CPUs | 8 CPUs | 16 CPUs | 32 CPUs |
>  |                      +--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
>  |                      |                   BW (Gbps)                           |
>  +----------------------+--------+--------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
>  | Baseline             | 27.9   | 59     | 93.1  | 92.8    | 93.7    | 94.4    |
>  +----------------------+--------+--------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
>  | Software IPsec       | 6      | 11.9   | 23.3  | 45.9    | 83.8    | 91.8    |
>  +----------------------+--------+--------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
>  | IPsec crypto offload | 15     | 29.7   | 58.5  | 89.6    | 90.4    | 90.8    |
>  +----------------------+--------+--------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
>  | IPsec full offload   | 28     | 57     | 90.7  | 91      | 91.3    | 91.9    |
>  +----------------------+--------+--------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
> 
>  IPsec full offload mode behaves as baseline and reaches linerate with same amount
>  of CPUs.
> 
>  Setups details (similar for both sides):
>  * NIC: ConnectX6-DX dual port, 100 Gbps each.
>    Single port used in the tests.
>  * CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8380 CPU @ 2.30GHz

My questions about performance were more about where does 
the performance loss originate. Is it because of loss of GRO?
Maybe sharing perf traces could answer some of those questions?