netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next v4 6/6] net: add heuristic for enabling TCP fraglist GRO

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: <e598e9eee3827fd173e3cd6f525df133eb3b54ec.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:14:17 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern
 <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next v4 6/6] net: add heuristic for enabling TCP
 fraglist GRO

On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 12:55 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 30.04.24 12:31, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 12:23 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> > > On 30.04.24 12:12, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 20:23 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> > > > > When forwarding TCP after GRO, software segmentation is very expensive,
> > > > > especially when the checksum needs to be recalculated.
> > > > > One case where that's currently unavoidable is when routing packets over
> > > > > PPPoE. Performance improves significantly when using fraglist GRO
> > > > > implemented in the same way as for UDP.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST is enabled, perform a lookup for an established
> > > > > socket in the same netns as the receiving device. While this may not
> > > > > cover all relevant use cases in multi-netns configurations, it should be
> > > > > good enough for most configurations that need this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here's a measurement of running 2 TCP streams through a MediaTek MT7622
> > > > > device (2-core Cortex-A53), which runs NAT with flow offload enabled from
> > > > > one ethernet port to PPPoE on another ethernet port + cake qdisc set to
> > > > > 1Gbps.
> > > > > 
> > > > > rx-gro-list off: 630 Mbit/s, CPU 35% idle
> > > > > rx-gro-list on:  770 Mbit/s, CPU 40% idle
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signe-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c   | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  net/ipv6/tcpv6_offload.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c
> > > > > index 87ae9808e260..3e9b8c6f9c8c 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c
> > > > > @@ -407,6 +407,36 @@ void tcp_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_gro_complete);
> > > > >  
> > > > > +static void tcp4_check_fraglist_gro(struct list_head *head, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > > > +				    struct tcphdr *th)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	const struct iphdr *iph;
> > > > > +	struct sk_buff *p;
> > > > > +	struct sock *sk;
> > > > > +	struct net *net;
> > > > > +	int iif, sdif;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (!(skb->dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST))
> > > > 
> > > > Should we add an 'unlikely()' here to pair with unlikely(is_flist) in
> > > > *gro_receive / *gro_complete?
> > > Not sure if unlikely() will make any difference here. I think it makes 
> > > more sense in the other places than here.
> > 
> > Why? AFAICS this will be called for every packet on the wire, exactly
> > as the code getting this annotation in patch 3/6.
> 
> I had compared assembly after adding an annotation and didn't see a 
> difference. However, my annotation was wrong.
> When I add: if (likely(!(skb->dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST)))
> the generated code is different, and I probably should use that.

I read the above as you intend to send a new revision. If so, feel free
to add 

Acked-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>

to the whole series.

Otherwise, please LMK, I think we can merge it as-is and ev. follow-up.

Thanks,

Paolo