netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] ibmvnic: Perform tx CSO during send scrq direct

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240805120959.70608deb@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:09:59 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Nick Child <nnac123@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bjking1@...ux.ibm.com, haren@...ux.ibm.com,
 ricklind@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] ibmvnic: Perform tx CSO during send scrq
 direct

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:52:57 -0500 Nick Child wrote:
> On 8/2/24 19:15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu,  1 Aug 2024 16:23:40 -0500 Nick Child wrote:  
> >> This extra
> >> precaution (requesting header info when the backing device may not use
> >> it) comes at the cost of performance (using direct vs indirect hcalls
> >> has a 30% delta in small packet RR transaction rate).  
> > 
> > What's "small" in this case? Non-GSO, or also less than MTU?  
> 
> I suppose "non-GSO" is the proper term. If a packet is non-GSO
> then we are able to use the direct hcall. On the other hand,
> if a packet is GSO then indirect must be used, we do not have the option 
> of direct vs indirect.

It'd be great to add more exact analysis to the commit message.
Presumably the change is most likely to cause trouble in combination
with large non-GSO frames. Could you measure the perf impact when TSO
is disabled and MTU is 9k?