[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a10b6d19-232c-4b6d-bd71-eb3451675f64@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:22:16 +0100
From: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
dsahern@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, liujian56@...wei.com,
horms@...nel.org, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, linyunsheng@...wei.com,
therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: gro: set {inner_,}network_header in
receive phase
Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> My intuition is that this patch has a high cost for normal GRO processing.
> SW-GRO is already a bottleneck on ARM cores in smart NICS.
>
> I would suggest instead using parameters to give both the nhoff and thoff values
> this would avoid many conditionals in the fast path.
>
> ->
>
> INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE int udp6_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb, int
> nhoff, int thoff)
> {
> const struct ipv6hdr *ipv6h = (const struct ipv6hdr *)(skb->data + nhoff);
> struct udphdr *uh = (struct udphdr *)(skb->data + thoff);
> ...
> }
>
> INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE int tcp6_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb, int
> nhoff, int thoff)
> {
> const struct ipv6hdr *iph = (const struct ipv6hdr *)(skb->data + nhoff);
> struct tcphdr *th = (struct tcphdr *)(skb->data + thoff);
>
> Why storing in skb fields things that really could be propagated more
> efficiently as function parameters ?
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the review!
I agree, the conditionals could be a problem and are actually not needed.
The third commit in this patch series introduces an optimisation for
ipv6/ipv4 using the correct {inner_}network_header. We can remove the
conditionals; I thought about multiple ways to do so. First, remove the
conditional in skb_gro_network_offset:
static inline int skb_gro_network_offset(const struct sk_buff *skb)
{
const u32 mask = NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->encap_mark - 1;
return (skb_network_offset(skb) & mask) | (skb_inner_network_offset(skb) & ~mask);
}
And for the conditionals in {inet,ipv6}_gro_receive I thought about two
ideas. The first is to move set_inner_network_header to encapsulation gro
functions like ipip_gro_receive, this way there's one less write (in
comparison to main) in these functions:
static struct sk_buff *ipip_gro_receive(struct list_head *head,
struct sk_buff *skb)
{
...
NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->encap_mark = 1;
skb_set_inner_network_header(skb, skb_gro_offset(skb));
The second way is to always write to inner_network_header:
INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE struct sk_buff *ipv6_gro_receive(struct list_head *head,
struct sk_buff *skb)
{
...
skb_set_inner_network_header(skb, off);
...
What do you think is better? I think the 1st is more beneficial for the
fast path.
We could then use the {inner_}network_header separation to optimise the
receive path, such as in the 3rd commit in this patch series.
Regards,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists