netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] Add HW checksum offload support for RZ/G2L GbEthernet IP

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: <37289018-785a-7584-f636-baa7729215af@omp.ru>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 22:01:02 +0300
From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
	<peterz@...radead.org>, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>,
	Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>, Wolfram Sang
	<wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, nikita.yoush
	<nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven
	<geert+renesas@...der.be>, Prabhakar Mahadev Lad
	<prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>, biju.das.au
	<biju.das.au@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] Add HW checksum offload support for
 RZ/G2L GbEthernet IP

On 1/26/24 1:08 AM, Biju Das wrote:
[...]

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 7:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] Add HW checksum offload support for
>> RZ/G2L GbEthernet IP
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> On 1/24/24 1:21 PM, Biju Das wrote:
>>
>>> This patch series aims to add HW checksum offload supported by TOE
>>> module found on the RZ/G2L Gb ethernet IP.
>>
>>    Your previous try was back in 2021, still the cover letter has the same
>> issues (hm, I didn't point out those back then).
> 
> Thanks for correcting my bad English.

   I don't think you were the author of the e.g. RZ/G2L User's Manual that
has the same wording... Or were you? :-)

[...]

>>> TOE does not calculate checksum for UDP part of this frame as it is
>>> optional function as per standards.
>>>
>>> Add Tx/Rx checksum offload supported by TOE for IPV4 and TCP/UDP
>> protocols.
>>>
>>> Results of iperf3 in Mbps
>>>
>>> RZ/V2L:
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled:	{921,932}
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled:	{867,612}
>>>
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled:	{950,946}
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled:	{952,920}
>>>
>>> RZ/G2L:
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled:	{920,936}
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled:	{871,626}
>>>
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled:	{953,950}
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled:	{954,920}
>>>
>>> RZ/G2LC:
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled:	{927,936}
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled:	{889,626}
>>>
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled:	{950,946}
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled:	{949,944}
>>
>>    Too many figures, I think... :-)
>>    How RZ/G2L SoC is different from RZ/G2LC?

   At least they are described by a single manual...

> Just want to share with the wider community how the HW checksum is
> improving the performance of various SoCs in the RZ/G2L family.
> 
> and the results show improved performance on all 3 SoCs.

   I guess RZ/V2L and RZ/G2L would've been enough... but I'm probably
quibbling... :-)

>>> v1->v2:
>>>  * Updated covering letter and results
>>>  * Fixed the sparse warnings for patch#1 by replacing __sum16->__wsum.
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>  This patches are tested with [1] without the CPU performance is not
>>> good
>>
>>    Without CPU? I guess the performance would be 0. Seriously, this is
>> hardly parseable... :-)
> 
> without the patch [1] CPU performance is not good which impacts the
> network throughput.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240117190545.596057-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/

   Thanks, that's much better. :-)

> Cheers,
> Biju

MBR, Sergey