Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] sk_buff: optimize layout for GRO

[Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>]

Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
 > Tow main drivers on my side:
> > - there are use cases/deployments that do not use them.
> > - moving them around was doable in term of required changes.
> >
> > There are no "slow-path" implications on my side. For example, vlan_*
> > fields are very critical performance wise, if the traffic is tagged.
> > But surely there are busy servers not using tagget traffic which will
> > enjoy the reduced cachelines footprint, and this changeset will not
> > impact negatively the first case.
> >
> > WRT to the vlan example, secmark and nfct require an extra conditional
> > to fetch the data. My understanding is that such additional conditional
> > is not measurable performance-wise when benchmarking the security
> > modules (or conntrack) because they have to do much more intersting
> > things after fetching a few bytes from an already hot cacheline.
> >
> > Not sure if the above somehow clarify my statements.
> >
> > As for expanding secmark to 64 bits, I guess that could be an
> > interesting follow-up discussion :)
> 
> The intersection between netdev and the LSM has a long and somewhat
> tortured past with each party making sacrifices along the way to get
> where we are at today.  It is far from perfect, at least from a LSM
> perspective, but it is what we've got and since performance is usually
> used as a club to beat back any changes proposed by the LSM side, I
> would like to object to these changes that negatively impact the LSM
> performance without some concession in return.  It has been a while
> since Casey and I have spoken about this, but I think the prefered
> option would be to exchange the current __u32 "sk_buff.secmark" field
> with a void* "sk_buff.security" field, like so many other kernel level
> objects.  Previous objections have eventually boiled down to the
> additional space in the sk_buff for the extra bits (there is some
> additional editorializing that could be done here, but I'll refrain),
> but based on the comments thus far in this thread it sounds like
> perhaps we can now make a deal here: move the LSM field down to a
> "colder" cacheline in exchange for converting the LSM field to a
> proper pointer.
> 
> Thoughts?

Is there a summary disucssion somewhere wrt. what exactly LSMs need?

There is the skb extension infra, does that work for you?