Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2023 14:52:49 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 01/21] net/tcp: Prepare tcp_md5sig_pool for TCP-AO | From | Dmitry Safonov <> |
| |
On 2/21/23 02:43, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:57:20PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > . >> Do you have a timeline for that work? >> And if you don't mind I keep re-iterating, as I'm trying to address TCP >> reviews and missed functionality/selftests. > > I'm hoping to get it ready for the next merge window.
Nice! I'll mark this 1/21 patch as [draft], mentioning your work as it will need to be re-made using per-request keys. Still, I will keep iterating TCP-AO patches set during 6.3 RCs in order to get more reviews/suggestions related to TCP changes.
>> 1) before your per-request key patches - it's not possible. >> 2) after your patches - my question would be: "is it better to >> kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in RX/TX for every signed TCP segment, rather than >> pre-allocate it?" >> >> The price of (2) may just well be negligible, but worth measuring before >> switching. > > Please keep in mind that you're already performing crypto which > is usually a lot slower than a kmalloc. In any case, if there is > any optimisation to be done to make the kmalloc faster by using > pools, then that optimisation should go into mm.
Fair point. Probably, kmalloc() is negligible. I'll measure as I have a patch for iperf for TCP-MD5/TCP-AO measurements.
Thanks, Dmitry
| |