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:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:48:37 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...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 Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 02:27:16PM -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> 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" ?

Yes, baseline is plain TCP without any encryption.

We can get higher numbers with Tariq's improvements, but it was not
important to achieve maximum as we are interested to see differences
between various modes.

Thanks