[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ttlgrb86.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 16:31:53 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Sergey Ryazanov
<ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 08/22] ovpn: implement basic TX path (UDP)
Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net> writes:
> +/* send skb to connected peer, if any */
> +static void ovpn_queue_skb(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn, struct sk_buff *skb, struct ovpn_peer *peer)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (likely(!peer))
> + /* retrieve peer serving the destination IP of this packet */
> + peer = ovpn_peer_lookup_by_dst(ovpn, skb);
> + if (unlikely(!peer)) {
> + net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: no peer to send data to\n", ovpn->dev->name);
> + goto drop;
> + }
> +
> + ret = ptr_ring_produce_bh(&peer->tx_ring, skb);
> + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> + net_err_ratelimited("%s: cannot queue packet to TX ring\n", peer->ovpn->dev->name);
> + goto drop;
> + }
> +
> + if (!queue_work(ovpn->crypto_wq, &peer->encrypt_work))
> + ovpn_peer_put(peer);
> +
> + return;
> +drop:
> + if (peer)
> + ovpn_peer_put(peer);
> + kfree_skb_list(skb);
> +}
So this puts packets on a per-peer 1024-packet FIFO queue with no
backpressure? That sounds like a pretty terrible bufferbloat situation.
Did you do any kind of latency-under-load testing of this, such as
running the RRUL test[0] through it?
-Toke
[0] https://flent.org/tests.html#the-realtime-response-under-load-rrul-test
Powered by blists - more mailing lists