netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: try to defer / return acked skbs to originating CPU

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: <20260119090435.44b1da2d@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:04:35 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: kuniyu@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 horms@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: try to defer / return acked skbs to
 originating CPU

On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 13:15:00 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Also, if workers are away from softirq, they will only process the
> > > defer queue in large patches, after receiving an trigger_rx_softirq()
> > > IPI.
> > > Any idea of skb_defer_free_flush() latency when dealing with batches
> > > of ~64 big TSO packets ?  
> >
> > Not sure if there's much we can do about that.. Perhaps we should have
> > a shrinker that flushes the defer queues? I chatted with Shakeel briefly
> > and it sounded fairly straightforward.  
> 
> I was mostly concerned about latency spikes, I did some tests here and
> this seems fine.

Looks like selftests run into the zerocopy Tx latency issue.
I'll drop this version from patchwork..

> (I assume you asked Shakeel about the extra memory being held in the
> per-cpu queue, and pcp implications ?)

Under real load it helps quite a bit but real load flushes the queues
frequently. I'll talk to him.