netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 00/15] io

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: <d0ba9ba9-8969-4bf6-a8c7-55628771c406@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 10:53:54 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>,
 io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/15] io_uring zero copy rx

On 10/9/24 10:50 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/9/24 10:35 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 10/9/24 9:43 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Yep basically line rate, I get 97-98Gbps. I originally used a slower box
>>> as the sender, but then you're capped on the non-zc sender being too
>>> slow. The intel box does better, but it's still basically maxing out the
>>> sender at this point. So yeah, with a faster (or more efficient sender),
>>
>> I am surprised by this comment. You should not see a Tx limited test
>> (including CPU bound sender). Tx with ZC has been the easy option for a
>> while now.
> 
> I just set this up to test yesterday and just used default! I'm sure
> there is a zc option, just not the default and hence it wasn't used.
> I'll give it a spin, will be useful for 200G testing.

I think we're talking past each other. Yes send with zerocopy is
available for a while now, both with io_uring and just sendmsg(), but
I'm using kperf for testing and it does not look like it supports it.
Might have to add it... We'll see how far I can get without it.

-- 
Jens Axboe