Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[Eran Ben-Avi]

Hi,

I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)  on ARM 500MHz with latest OCF patched on Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions are using workqueue.
Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback function(in ipsec_ocf.c) was starved with zero routing.
The problem was solved after I switched to use tasklet instead of the workqueue.
Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?

Please advice.

Thanks,
Eran Ben-Avi


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[Eran Ben-Avi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1452 bytes --]


--- David McCullough
<David_Mccullough@securecomputing.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance
> between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)
>  on ARM 500MHz with latest OCF patched on
> Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions
> are using workqueue.
> > Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher
> priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback
> function(in ipsec_ocf.c) was starved with zero
> routing.
> > The problem was solved after I switched to use
> tasklet instead of the workqueue.
> > Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?
> 
> Sure,  send in a patch. This is against
> ocf-linux-20070727 right ?
Yes.
Can you please estimate when next release will be
ready?

Thanks. 

> 
> Cheers,
> Davidm
> 
> -- 
> David McCullough, 
> david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61
> 734352815
> Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org
> http://www.cyberguard.com
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at 
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 

[-- Attachment #2: 3642874744-use_tasklet.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2609 bytes --]

--- openswan-2.4.9/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c	2007-08-30 10:29:39.000000000 -0200
+++ openswan-2.4.9_last/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c	2007-08-30 10:39:42.000000000 -0200
@@ -53,10 +53,10 @@
  * Tuning parameters,  the settings below appear best for
  * the IXP
  */
-#define USE_BATCH 1	/* enable batch mode */
-#define USE_CBIMM 1	/* enable immediate callbacks */
-#define FORCE_QS  0	/* force use of queues for continuation of state machine */
-
+#define USE_BATCH   1	/* enable batch mode */
+#define USE_CBIMM   1	/* enable immediate callbacks */
+#define FORCE_QS    0	/* force use of queues for continuation of state machine */
+#define USE_TASKLET 1  /* force use of tasklet for continuation of state machine */
 /*
  * Because some OCF operations are synchronous (ie., software encryption)
  * we need to protect ourselves from distructive re-entry.  All we do
@@ -83,7 +83,11 @@
 		(*sm)(arg); \
 	})
 
-#if FORCE_QS == 0
+#if USE_TASKLET == 1
+	#define PROCESS_NEXT(tskl, sm, arg) \
+		tasklet_init(&tskl,(void (*)(unsigned long)) sm, (unsigned long)arg);\
+		tasklet_schedule(&tskl);
+#elif FORCE_QS == 0
 	#define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) \
 		if (in_interrupt()) { \
 			PROCESS_LATER(wq, wqsm, arg); \
@@ -218,6 +222,7 @@
 	return 1;
 }
 
+#if USE_TASKLET == 0
 #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
 static void
 ipsec_rsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -228,6 +233,7 @@
 #else
 #define	ipsec_rsm_wq	ipsec_rsm
 #endif
+#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
 
 static int
 ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
@@ -235,7 +241,6 @@
 	struct ipsec_rcv_state *irs = (struct ipsec_rcv_state *)crp->crp_opaque;
 
 	KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb\n");
-
 	if (irs == NULL) {
 		KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb: "
 				"NULL irs in callback\n");
@@ -273,7 +278,11 @@
 	crp = NULL;
 
 	/* setup the rest of the processing now */
+#if USE_TASKLET == 1
+	PROCESS_NEXT(irs->tasklet, ipsec_rsm, irs);
+#else
 	PROCESS_NEXT(irs->workq, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm, irs);
+#endif
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -396,6 +405,7 @@
 	return(IPSEC_RCV_PENDING);
 }
 
+#if USE_TASKLET == 0
 #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
 static void
 ipsec_xsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -406,6 +416,7 @@
 #else
 #define	ipsec_xsm_wq	ipsec_xsm
 #endif
+#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
 
 static int
 ipsec_ocf_xmit_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
@@ -445,7 +456,11 @@
 	crp = NULL;
 
 	/* setup the rest of the processing now */
+#if USE_TASKLET == 1
+	PROCESS_NEXT(ixs->tasklet, ipsec_xsm, ixs);
+#else
 	PROCESS_NEXT(ixs->workq, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm, ixs);
+#endif
 	return 0;
 }
 

Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[David McCullough]

Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> 
> --- David McCullough
> <David_Mccullough@securecomputing.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance
> > between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)
> >  on ARM 500MHz with latest OCF patched on
> > Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions
> > are using workqueue.
> > > Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher
> > priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback
> > function(in ipsec_ocf.c) was starved with zero
> > routing.
> > > The problem was solved after I switched to use
> > tasklet instead of the workqueue.
> > > Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?
> > 
> > Sure,  send in a patch. This is against
> > ocf-linux-20070727 right ?
>
> Yes.
> Can you please estimate when next release will be
> ready?

When there is a need,  I can turn it around in a day or so.
I could also post a patch that is current much more quickly
if you would prefer ?

Cheers,
Davidm

-- 
David McCullough,  david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61 734352815
Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com

RE: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[Kabir Ahsan-r9aahw]

We can also do direct function call of ipsec_xsm or ipsec_rsm instead of using tasklet. 

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Eran Ben-Avi
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:58 AM
To: David McCullough
Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?


--- David McCullough
<David_Mccullough@securecomputing.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance
> between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)  on ARM 500MHz 
> with latest OCF patched on
> Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions are using 
> workqueue.
> > Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher
> priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback function(in ipsec_ocf.c) 
> was starved with zero routing.
> > The problem was solved after I switched to use
> tasklet instead of the workqueue.
> > Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?
> 
> Sure,  send in a patch. This is against
> ocf-linux-20070727 right ?
Yes.
Can you please estimate when next release will be ready?

Thanks. 

> 
> Cheers,
> Davidm
> 
> --
> David McCullough, 
> david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61
> 734352815
> Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org 
> http://www.cyberguard.com
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 

Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[David McCullough]

Jivin Kabir Ahsan-r9aahw lays it down ...
> We can also do direct function call of ipsec_xsm or ipsec_rsm instead
> of using tasklet. 

Care to come up with something that still works for 2.4 but it targetted
more at 2.6 ?  I wasn't all the happy with the double function thing
going on there,

Cheers,
Davidm


> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Eran Ben-Avi
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:58 AM
> To: David McCullough
> Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?
> 
> 
> --- David McCullough
> <David_Mccullough@securecomputing.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance
> > between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)  on ARM 500MHz 
> > with latest OCF patched on
> > Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions are using 
> > workqueue.
> > > Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher
> > priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback function(in ipsec_ocf.c) 
> > was starved with zero routing.
> > > The problem was solved after I switched to use
> > tasklet instead of the workqueue.
> > > Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?
> > 
> > Sure,  send in a patch. This is against
> > ocf-linux-20070727 right ?
> Yes.
> Can you please estimate when next release will be ready?
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Davidm
> > 
> > --
> > David McCullough, 
> > david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61
> > 734352815
> > Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org 
> > http://www.cyberguard.com
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> > linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>        
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Got a little couch potato? 
> Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 
> 

-- 
David McCullough,  david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61 734352815
Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com

Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[David McCullough]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1371 bytes --]


Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance
> > between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)
> >  on ARM 500MHz with latest OCF patched on
> > Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions
> > are using workqueue.
> > > Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher
> > priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback
> > function(in ipsec_ocf.c) was starved with zero
> > routing.
> > > The problem was solved after I switched to use
> > tasklet instead of the workqueue.
> > > Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?
> > 
> > Sure,  send in a patch. This is against
> > ocf-linux-20070727 right ?
> Yes.
> Can you please estimate when next release will be
> ready?

I can probably do one in about a week (offline next week). I could more
easily drop a diff since the last release if that helps you out.

I have made a few small changes to your patch so it should be safe on
2.4 systems yet still select tasklets on 2.6 automatically.

Could you have a look at it ?  I have done some basic testing here
and it seems ok,  haven't checked your performance increases yet ;-)

Thanks,
Davidm

-- 
David McCullough,  david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61 734352815
Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com

[-- Attachment #2: tasklet.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 4117 bytes --]

Index: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h
===================================================================
RCS file: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -r1.13 ipsec_rcv.h
--- openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h	26 Jun 2007 06:28:52 -0000	1.13
+++ openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h	26 Sep 2007 14:17:25 -0000
@@ -149,6 +149,9 @@
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_OCF
 	struct work_struct	workq;
+#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
+	struct tasklet_struct	tasklet;
+#endif
 #endif
 #ifndef NET_21
 	struct net_device *devp;
Index: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h
===================================================================
RCS file: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -r1.9 ipsec_xmit.h
--- openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h	26 Jun 2007 05:26:25 -0000	1.9
+++ openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h	26 Sep 2007 14:17:25 -0000
@@ -140,6 +140,9 @@
 	int		next_state;
 #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_OCF
 	struct work_struct	workq;
+#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
+	struct tasklet_struct	tasklet;
+#endif
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_ALG
 	struct ipsec_alg_auth *ixt_a;
Index: openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c
===================================================================
RCS file: openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -r1.27 ipsec_ocf.c
--- openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c	11 Jul 2007 00:35:01 -0000	1.27
+++ openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c	26 Sep 2007 14:17:25 -0000
@@ -56,7 +56,11 @@
 #define USE_BATCH 1	/* enable batch mode */
 #define USE_CBIMM 1	/* enable immediate callbacks */
 #define FORCE_QS  0	/* force use of queues for continuation of state machine */
-
+#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
+#define USE_TASKLET 1  /* use tasklet for continuation of state machine */
+#else
+#define USE_TASKLET 0  /* don't use tasklet for continuation of state machine */
+#endif
 /*
  * Because some OCF operations are synchronous (ie., software encryption)
  * we need to protect ourselves from distructive re-entry.  All we do
@@ -83,15 +87,21 @@
 		(*sm)(arg); \
 	})
 
-#if FORCE_QS == 0
-	#define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) \
+#if USE_TASKLET == 1
+	#define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) ({ \
+		tasklet_init(&this->tasklet, \
+			(void (*)(unsigned long)) sm, (unsigned long)this); \
+		tasklet_schedule(&this->tasklet); \
+		})
+#elif FORCE_QS == 0
+	#define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) \
 		if (in_interrupt()) { \
-			PROCESS_LATER(wq, wqsm, arg); \
+			PROCESS_LATER(this->workq, wqsm, this); \
 		} else { \
-			PROCESS_NOW(sm, arg); \
+			PROCESS_NOW(sm, this); \
 		}
 #else
-	#define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) PROCESS_LATER(wq, wqsm, arg)
+	#define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) PROCESS_LATER(this->workq, wqsm, this)
 #endif
 
 /*
@@ -218,6 +228,7 @@
 	return 1;
 }
 
+#if USE_TASKLET == 0
 #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
 static void
 ipsec_rsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -228,6 +239,7 @@
 #else
 #define	ipsec_rsm_wq	ipsec_rsm
 #endif
+#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
 
 static int
 ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
@@ -235,7 +247,6 @@
 	struct ipsec_rcv_state *irs = (struct ipsec_rcv_state *)crp->crp_opaque;
 
 	KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb\n");
-
 	if (irs == NULL) {
 		KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb: "
 				"NULL irs in callback\n");
@@ -273,7 +284,7 @@
 	crp = NULL;
 
 	/* setup the rest of the processing now */
-	PROCESS_NEXT(irs->workq, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm, irs);
+	PROCESS_NEXT(irs, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm);
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -396,6 +407,7 @@
 	return(IPSEC_RCV_PENDING);
 }
 
+#if USE_TASKLET == 0
 #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
 static void
 ipsec_xsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -406,6 +418,7 @@
 #else
 #define	ipsec_xsm_wq	ipsec_xsm
 #endif
+#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
 
 static int
 ipsec_ocf_xmit_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
@@ -445,7 +458,7 @@
 	crp = NULL;
 
 	/* setup the rest of the processing now */
-	PROCESS_NEXT(ixs->workq, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm, ixs);
+	PROCESS_NEXT(ixs, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm);
 	return 0;
 }
 

Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[Eran Ben-Avi]

----- Original Message ----
> From: David McCullough <David_Mccullough@securecomputing.com>
> To: Eran Ben-Avi <eranpublic@yahoo.com>
> Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org; ocf-linux-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:26:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?
> 
> 
> Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > > Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I tested IPSec(tunnel mode) routing performance
> > > between 2 GbE ports using packet generator(SMARTBIT)
> > >  on ARM 500MHz with latest OCF patched on
> > > Openswan2.4.9 and I noticed the callback functions
> > > are using workqueue.
> > > > Since RX was performed in NAPI mode with higher
> > > priority then TX (in workqueue), the callback
> > > function(in ipsec_ocf.c) was starved with zero
> > > routing.
> > > > The problem was solved after I switched to use
> > > tasklet instead of the workqueue.
> > > > Is there a room for updating next OCF release ?
> > > 
> > > Sure,  send in a patch. This is against
> > > ocf-linux-20070727 right ?
> > Yes.
> > Can you please estimate when next release will be
> > ready?
> 
> I can probably do one in about a week (offline next week). I could more
> easily drop a diff since the last release if that helps you out.
> 
> I have made a few small changes to your patch so it should be safe on
> 2.4 systems yet still select tasklets on 2.6 automatically.
> 
> Could you have a look at it ?  I have done some basic testing here
> and it seems ok,  haven't checked your performance increases yet ;-)
> 
Sorry for the late response.
It seems to be ok. I will test it more intensely in the next few days.
Thanks.

> Thanks,
> Davidm
> 
> -- 
> David McCullough,  david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,  
> Ph:+61
> 
 734352815
> Secure Computing - SnapGear 
> http://www.uCdot.org
> 
 http://www.cyberguard.com
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> Index: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.13
> diff -u -r1.13 ipsec_rcv.h
> --- openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h    26 Jun 2007
> 06:28:52
> 
 -0000    1.13
> +++ openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h    26 Sep 2007
> 14:17:25
> 
 -0000
> @@ -149,6 +149,9 @@
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_OCF
>      struct work_struct    workq;
> +#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
> +    struct tasklet_struct    tasklet;
> +#endif
>  #endif
>  #ifndef NET_21
>      struct net_device *devp;
> Index: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.9
> diff -u -r1.9 ipsec_xmit.h
> --- openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h    26 Jun
> 2007
> 
 05:26:25 -0000    1.9
> +++ openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h    26 Sep
> 2007
> 
 14:17:25 -0000
> @@ -140,6 +140,9 @@
>      int        next_state;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_OCF
>      struct work_struct    workq;
> +#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
> +    struct tasklet_struct    tasklet;
> +#endif
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_ALG
>      struct ipsec_alg_auth *ixt_a;
> Index: openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.27
> diff -u -r1.27 ipsec_ocf.c
> --- openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c    11 Jul 2007 00:35:01
> -0000
> 
    1.27
> +++ openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c    26 Sep 2007 14:17:25 -0000
> @@ -56,7 +56,11 @@
>  #define USE_BATCH 1    /* enable batch mode */
>  #define USE_CBIMM 1    /* enable immediate callbacks */
>  #define FORCE_QS  0    /* force use of queues for continuation
> of
> 
 state machine */
> -
> +#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
> +#define USE_TASKLET 1  /* use tasklet for continuation of
> state
> 
 machine */
> +#else
> +#define USE_TASKLET 0  /* don't use tasklet for continuation of
> state
> 
 machine */
> +#endif
>  /*
>   * Because some OCF operations are synchronous (ie.,
> software
> 
 encryption)
>   * we need to protect ourselves from distructive re-entry.  All we do
> @@ -83,15 +87,21 @@
>          (*sm)(arg); \
>      })
>  
> -#if FORCE_QS == 0
> -    #define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) \
> +#if USE_TASKLET == 1
> +    #define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) ({ \
> +        tasklet_init(&this->tasklet, \
> +            (void (*)(unsigned long)) sm, (unsigned long)this); \
> +        tasklet_schedule(&this->tasklet); \
> +        })
> +#elif FORCE_QS == 0
> +    #define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) \
>          if (in_interrupt()) { \
> -            PROCESS_LATER(wq, wqsm, arg); \
> +            PROCESS_LATER(this->workq, wqsm, this); \
>          } else { \
> -            PROCESS_NOW(sm, arg); \
> +            PROCESS_NOW(sm, this); \
>          }
>  #else
> -    #define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) PROCESS_LATER(wq,
> wqsm,
> 
 arg)
> +    #define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm)
> PROCESS_LATER(this->workq,
> 
 wqsm, this)
>  #endif
>  
>  /*
> @@ -218,6 +228,7 @@
>      return 1;
>  }
>  
> +#if USE_TASKLET == 0
>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
>  static void
>  ipsec_rsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -228,6 +239,7 @@
>  #else
>  #define    ipsec_rsm_wq    ipsec_rsm
>  #endif
> +#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
>  
>  static int
>  ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
> @@ -235,7 +247,6 @@
>      struct ipsec_rcv_state *irs = (struct
> ipsec_rcv_state
> 
 *)crp->crp_opaque;
>  
>      KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb\n");
> -
>      if (irs == NULL) {
>          KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb: "
>                  "NULL irs in callback\n");
> @@ -273,7 +284,7 @@
>      crp = NULL;
>  
>      /* setup the rest of the processing now */
> -    PROCESS_NEXT(irs->workq, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm, irs);
> +    PROCESS_NEXT(irs, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm);
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -396,6 +407,7 @@
>      return(IPSEC_RCV_PENDING);
>  }
>  
> +#if USE_TASKLET == 0
>  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
>  static void
>  ipsec_xsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -406,6 +418,7 @@
>  #else
>  #define    ipsec_xsm_wq    ipsec_xsm
>  #endif
> +#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
>  
>  static int
>  ipsec_ocf_xmit_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
> @@ -445,7 +458,7 @@
>      crp = NULL;
>  
>      /* setup the rest of the processing now */
> -    PROCESS_NEXT(ixs->workq, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm, ixs);
> +    PROCESS_NEXT(ixs, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm);
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
> 
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: Openswan 2.4.9 - tasklet or workqueue ?

[David McCullough]

Jivin Eran Ben-Avi lays it down ...
...
> > I have made a few small changes to your patch so it should be safe on
> > 2.4 systems yet still select tasklets on 2.6 automatically.
> > 
> > Could you have a look at it ?  I have done some basic testing here
> > and it seems ok,  haven't checked your performance increases yet ;-)
> > 
> Sorry for the late response.
> It seems to be ok. I will test it more intensely in the next few days.


No problems,  I have it sitting there ready to go :-)

Cheers,
Davidm

> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > Index: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h,v
> > retrieving revision 1.13
> > diff -u -r1.13 ipsec_rcv.h
> > --- openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h    26 Jun 2007
> > 06:28:52
> > 
>  -0000    1.13
> > +++ openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_rcv.h    26 Sep 2007
> > 14:17:25
> > 
>  -0000
> > @@ -149,6 +149,9 @@
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_OCF
> >      struct work_struct    workq;
> > +#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
> > +    struct tasklet_struct    tasklet;
> > +#endif
> >  #endif
> >  #ifndef NET_21
> >      struct net_device *devp;
> > Index: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h,v
> > retrieving revision 1.9
> > diff -u -r1.9 ipsec_xmit.h
> > --- openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h    26 Jun
> > 2007
> > 
>  05:26:25 -0000    1.9
> > +++ openswan/linux/include/openswan/ipsec_xmit.h    26 Sep
> > 2007
> > 
>  14:17:25 -0000
> > @@ -140,6 +140,9 @@
> >      int        next_state;
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_OCF
> >      struct work_struct    workq;
> > +#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
> > +    struct tasklet_struct    tasklet;
> > +#endif
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_KLIPS_ALG
> >      struct ipsec_alg_auth *ixt_a;
> > Index: openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.27
> > diff -u -r1.27 ipsec_ocf.c
> > --- openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c    11 Jul 2007 00:35:01
> > -0000
> > 
>     1.27
> > +++ openswan/linux/net/ipsec/ipsec_ocf.c    26 Sep 2007 14:17:25 -0000
> > @@ -56,7 +56,11 @@
> >  #define USE_BATCH 1    /* enable batch mode */
> >  #define USE_CBIMM 1    /* enable immediate callbacks */
> >  #define FORCE_QS  0    /* force use of queues for continuation
> > of
> > 
>  state machine */
> > -
> > +#ifdef DECLARE_TASKLET
> > +#define USE_TASKLET 1  /* use tasklet for continuation of
> > state
> > 
>  machine */
> > +#else
> > +#define USE_TASKLET 0  /* don't use tasklet for continuation of
> > state
> > 
>  machine */
> > +#endif
> >  /*
> >   * Because some OCF operations are synchronous (ie.,
> > software
> > 
>  encryption)
> >   * we need to protect ourselves from distructive re-entry.  All we do
> > @@ -83,15 +87,21 @@
> >          (*sm)(arg); \
> >      })
> >  
> > -#if FORCE_QS == 0
> > -    #define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) \
> > +#if USE_TASKLET == 1
> > +    #define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) ({ \
> > +        tasklet_init(&this->tasklet, \
> > +            (void (*)(unsigned long)) sm, (unsigned long)this); \
> > +        tasklet_schedule(&this->tasklet); \
> > +        })
> > +#elif FORCE_QS == 0
> > +    #define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm) \
> >          if (in_interrupt()) { \
> > -            PROCESS_LATER(wq, wqsm, arg); \
> > +            PROCESS_LATER(this->workq, wqsm, this); \
> >          } else { \
> > -            PROCESS_NOW(sm, arg); \
> > +            PROCESS_NOW(sm, this); \
> >          }
> >  #else
> > -    #define PROCESS_NEXT(wq, wqsm, sm, arg) PROCESS_LATER(wq,
> > wqsm,
> > 
>  arg)
> > +    #define PROCESS_NEXT(this, wqsm, sm)
> > PROCESS_LATER(this->workq,
> > 
>  wqsm, this)
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -218,6 +228,7 @@
> >      return 1;
> >  }
> >  
> > +#if USE_TASKLET == 0
> >  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
> >  static void
> >  ipsec_rsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
> > @@ -228,6 +239,7 @@
> >  #else
> >  #define    ipsec_rsm_wq    ipsec_rsm
> >  #endif
> > +#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
> >  
> >  static int
> >  ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
> > @@ -235,7 +247,6 @@
> >      struct ipsec_rcv_state *irs = (struct
> > ipsec_rcv_state
> > 
>  *)crp->crp_opaque;
> >  
> >      KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb\n");
> > -
> >      if (irs == NULL) {
> >          KLIPS_PRINT(debug_rcv, "klips_debug:ipsec_ocf_rcv_cb: "
> >                  "NULL irs in callback\n");
> > @@ -273,7 +284,7 @@
> >      crp = NULL;
> >  
> >      /* setup the rest of the processing now */
> > -    PROCESS_NEXT(irs->workq, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm, irs);
> > +    PROCESS_NEXT(irs, ipsec_rsm_wq, ipsec_rsm);
> >      return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -396,6 +407,7 @@
> >      return(IPSEC_RCV_PENDING);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#if USE_TASKLET == 0
> >  #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,20)
> >  static void
> >  ipsec_xsm_wq(struct work_struct *work)
> > @@ -406,6 +418,7 @@
> >  #else
> >  #define    ipsec_xsm_wq    ipsec_xsm
> >  #endif
> > +#endif /* USE_TASKLET */
> >  
> >  static int
> >  ipsec_ocf_xmit_cb(struct cryptop *crp)
> > @@ -445,7 +458,7 @@
> >      crp = NULL;
> >  
> >      /* setup the rest of the processing now */
> > -    PROCESS_NEXT(ixs->workq, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm, ixs);
> > +    PROCESS_NEXT(ixs, ipsec_xsm_wq, ipsec_xsm);
> >      return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 

-- 
David McCullough,  david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61 734352815
Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com