[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221124110748.GP424616@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 12:07:48 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v7 6/8] xfrm: speed-up lookup of HW policies
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:53:10PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:36:19AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > Thanks for an explanation, trying it now.
>
> Something like that?
Yes :)
>
> The code is untested yet.
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> index 5076f9d7a752..5819023c32ba 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> @@ -1115,6 +1115,19 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
> rcu_read_lock();
> h = xfrm_dst_hash(net, daddr, saddr, tmpl->reqid, encap_family);
> hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(x, net->xfrm.state_bydst + h, bydst) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD) &&
> + pol->xdo.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) {
Please try to avoid that check for every state in the list.
Maybe enable this code with a static key if packet offload
is used?
> + if (x->xso.type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET)
> + /* HW states are in the head of list, there is no need
> + * to iterate further.
> + */
> + break;
> +
> + /* Packet offload: both policy and SA should have same device */
> + if (pol->xdo.dev != x->xso.dev)
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> if (x->props.family == encap_family &&
> x->props.reqid == tmpl->reqid &&
> (mark & x->mark.m) == x->mark.v &&
> @@ -1132,6 +1145,19 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
>
> h_wildcard = xfrm_dst_hash(net, daddr, &saddr_wildcard, tmpl->reqid, encap_family);
> hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(x, net->xfrm.state_bydst + h_wildcard, bydst) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD) &&
> + pol->xdo.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) {
> + if (x->xso.type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET)
> + /* HW states are in the head of list, there is no need
> + * to iterate further.
> + */
> + break;
> +
> + /* Packet offload: both policy and SA should have same device */
> + if (pol->xdo.dev != x->xso.dev)
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> if (x->props.family == encap_family &&
> x->props.reqid == tmpl->reqid &&
> (mark & x->mark.m) == x->mark.v &&
> @@ -1185,6 +1211,17 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
> goto out;
> }
>
> + if (pol->xdo.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) {
> + memcpy(&x->xso, &pol->xdo, sizeof(x->xso));
> + error = pol->xdo.dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(x);
> + if (error) {
> + x->km.state = XFRM_STATE_DEAD;
> + to_put = x;
> + x = NULL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
I guess that is to handle acquires, right?
What is the idea behind that? xdo_dev_state_add sets
offload type and dev?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists