Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-163807-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <63c1cb0e-bd63-43da-b451-5383bb4a0f5f@nbd.name>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:55:29 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next v4 6/6] net: add heuristic for enabling TCP
 fraglist GRO
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240427182305.24461-1-nbd@nbd.name>
 <20240427182305.24461-7-nbd@nbd.name>
 <e590ba4608c9810d3d75fefdcbba9f2a02c23a0f.camel@redhat.com>
 <e3a3a499-11b3-4906-b0f1-b94e70825ca9@nbd.name>
 <18dee53b6ae7cd75196141e4c5d8984bc0f3296f.camel@redhat.com>
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Content-Language: en-US
Autocrypt: addr=nbd@nbd.name; keydata=
 xsDiBEah5CcRBADIY7pu4LIv3jBlyQ/2u87iIZGe6f0f8pyB4UjzfJNXhJb8JylYYRzIOSxh
 ExKsdLCnJqsG1PY1mqTtoG8sONpwsHr2oJ4itjcGHfn5NJSUGTbtbbxLro13tHkGFCoCr4Z5
 Pv+XRgiANSpYlIigiMbOkide6wbggQK32tC20QxUIwCg4k6dtV/4kwEeiOUfErq00TVqIiEE
 AKcUi4taOuh/PQWx/Ujjl/P1LfJXqLKRPa8PwD4j2yjoc9l+7LptSxJThL9KSu6gtXQjcoR2
 vCK0OeYJhgO4kYMI78h1TSaxmtImEAnjFPYJYVsxrhay92jisYc7z5R/76AaELfF6RCjjGeP
 wdalulG+erWju710Bif7E1yjYVWeA/9Wd1lsOmx6uwwYgNqoFtcAunDaMKi9xVQW18FsUusM
 TdRvTZLBpoUAy+MajAL+R73TwLq3LnKpIcCwftyQXK5pEDKq57OhxJVv1Q8XkA9Dn1SBOjNB
 l25vJDFAT9ntp9THeDD2fv15yk4EKpWhu4H00/YX8KkhFsrtUs69+vZQwc0cRmVsaXggRmll
 dGthdSA8bmJkQG5iZC5uYW1lPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJGoeQnAhsjBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYCAwEC
 HgECF4AACgkQ130UHQKnbvXsvgCgjsAIIOsY7xZ8VcSm7NABpi91yTMAniMMmH7FRenEAYMa
 VrwYTIThkTlQzsFNBEah5FQQCACMIep/hTzgPZ9HbCTKm9xN4bZX0JjrqjFem1Nxf3MBM5vN
 CYGBn8F4sGIzPmLhl4xFeq3k5irVg/YvxSDbQN6NJv8o+tP6zsMeWX2JjtV0P4aDIN1pK2/w
 VxcicArw0VYdv2ZCarccFBgH2a6GjswqlCqVM3gNIMI8ikzenKcso8YErGGiKYeMEZLwHaxE
 Y7mTPuOTrWL8uWWRL5mVjhZEVvDez6em/OYvzBwbkhImrryF29e3Po2cfY2n7EKjjr3/141K
 DHBBdgXlPNfDwROnA5ugjjEBjwkwBQqPpDA7AYPvpHh5vLbZnVGu5CwG7NAsrb2isRmjYoqk
 wu++3117AAMFB/9S0Sj7qFFQcD4laADVsabTpNNpaV4wAgVTRHKV/kC9luItzwDnUcsZUPdQ
 f3MueRJ3jIHU0UmRBG3uQftqbZJj3ikhnfvyLmkCNe+/hXhPu9sGvXyi2D4vszICvc1KL4RD
 aLSrOsROx22eZ26KqcW4ny7+va2FnvjsZgI8h4sDmaLzKczVRIiLITiMpLFEU/VoSv0m1F4B
 FtRgoiyjFzigWG0MsTdAN6FJzGh4mWWGIlE7o5JraNhnTd+yTUIPtw3ym6l8P+gbvfoZida0
 TspgwBWLnXQvP5EDvlZnNaKa/3oBes6z0QdaSOwZCRA3QSLHBwtgUsrT6RxRSweLrcabwkkE
 GBECAAkFAkah5FQCGwwACgkQ130UHQKnbvW2GgCeMncXpbbWNT2AtoAYICrKyX5R3iMAoMhw
 cL98efvrjdstUfTCP2pfetyN
In-Reply-To: <18dee53b6ae7cd75196141e4c5d8984bc0f3296f.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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@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.

- Felix