From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] net: switch secpath to use skb extension
 infrastructure
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:18:41 +0100
Message-ID: <20181211101841.oyacneho4724tzmj@breakpoint.cc>
References: <20181210145006.19098-1-fw@strlen.de>
 <20181210145006.19098-14-fw@strlen.de>
 <20181211080605.GS3581@gauss3.secunet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([146.0.238.67]:35764 "EHLO
        Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726176AbeLKKSo (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:18:44 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181211080605.GS3581@gauss3.secunet.de>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:50:06PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> >  }
> > @@ -552,11 +517,6 @@ void __init xfrm_input_init(void)
> >  	if (err)
> >  		gro_cells.cells = NULL;
> >  
> > -	secpath_cachep = kmem_cache_create("secpath_cache",
> > -					   sizeof(struct sec_path),
> > -					   0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC,
> > -					   NULL);
> 
> This is not so nice. Usually we need a secpath per packet for IPsec.
> With removing the cache, we have to kmalloc a secpath for each packet.
> This might have some performance impact.

I would expect that the extension allocations come from
kmalloc-96 cache in 'ipsec only' case.

I can run a few IPSEC benchmark tests to see if there is measureable
impact.