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]

Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:27:16 -0700
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        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 22 Aug 09:33, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>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.
>>

Just making sure: Baseline == "Clear text TCP" ?

>>  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?

Performance loss between full and baseline ? it's hardly measurable .. 
less than 3% in the worst case.

>Maybe sharing perf traces could answer some of those questions?