From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: md5: use kmalloc() backed scratch areas
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:39:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrWUOuwaUrwkU9ywcqTK6aqQn6yNESmR3fgz6VMhwAnQdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1466829439.6850.126.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <1466870975.6850.139.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <1467046313.6850.171.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
 <CALCETrUSi3T5JXMunEO9RM5ZEz=aA2xtf9encEVYGxJF4mbhKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160628034150.GA13953@gondor.apana.org.au> <CALCETrXOT-zaV8O1Yu4RGybGvPv5C7gr=7EWjTKvUQUaRxz1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160629022337.GB23390@gondor.apana.org.au> <CALCETrW3zzMRazohKfOh7PKb5jegJOmyrC7EiCEF0eQ5SArNyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160629150257.GA29490@gondor.apana.org.au> <CALCETrVKjwKkzR+qwsC=DMvM9tR4beAtvw=LLjzsAyuztV4bWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160629153818.GA29838@gondor.apana.org.au> <CALCETrUR1+au2-11qSAT24832nZcTwjUj8UY09rCMisyHawnaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1467236646.6369.5.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52]:36818 "EHLO
	mail-vk0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751698AbcF2WkL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:40:11 -0400
Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id m127so26426514vkb.3
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1467236646.6369.5.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 09:41 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Overall, it looks like there's overhead of something like 50ns for
>> each ahash invocation vs the shash equivalent.  It's not huge, but
>> it's there.  (This is cache-hot.  I bet it's considerably worse if
>> cache-cold, because ahash will require a lot more code cache lines as
>> well as the extra cache lines involved in the scatterlist and whatever
>> arch stuff is needed to map back and forth between virtual and
>> physical addresses.
>
> I am kind of mystified seeing someone caring about TCP MD5, other than
> just making sure it wont crash the host when it needs to be used ;)
>
> The real useful work would be to use a jump label so that we can avoid
> spending cycles for non TCP MD5 sessions, when a host never had to use
> any MD5 negotiation.
>
>
>

I don't care about TCP MD5 performance at all.  Ease of maintenance is
nice, though, and maybe there are other places in the kernel where
performance does matter.

--Andy