Re: [patch/RFC]: Asynchronous IPsec processing benchmark.
From: jamal <hidden>
Date: 2005-05-05 13:04:29
On Wed, 2005-04-05 at 20:11 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 06:40:14 -0400 jamal [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2005-03-05 at 17:38 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:quoted
Here are some numbers: ./netperf -l 60 -H gw -t TCP_STREAM -i 10,2 -I 99,5 -- -m 4096 -s 57344 -S 57344 TCP STREAM TEST to gw : +/-2.5% @ 99% conf. async-ipsec, 10^6bits/sec: 35.42 sync-ipsec, 10^6bits/sec: 37.11 So even with existing timer deferring it is not noticebly slower [about 4%].by "sync" i hope you mean the original code without your change?Yes, it is vanilla 2.6.12-rc2 kernel with native IPsec.
Very nice numbers then - considering the async was at least delaying things by at least a jiffie.
quoted
The one thing i see in your POC code that may affect numbers a bit is allocation of struct esp_async every time in the path. Perhaps precreate a pool of those and then just grab/return to/fro pool;That could be skb too - since both skb/kmalloc atomic allocations end up in kmem_cache_alloc().
The skb is a little tricky in particular if you allocate in one CPU and free on another. If this could happen with the esp_async struct as well then it is not worth it.
quoted
BTW, you may need to incr ref counter of x pre-callback and decrement when done in callback.It looks like dst entry holding is enough since direct dst->output(), i.e. xfrm_state->output(), call itself is not protected by reference counter, but dst entry is being held during that call.
makes sense. cheers, jamal