From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:50:31 -0800 Message-ID: <565DEBF7.7040304@hpe.com> References: <20151201175953.GC21252@oracle.com> <565DE446.2070609@hpe.com> <20151201184504.GF21252@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Sowmini Varadhan Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151201184504.GF21252@oracle.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 12/01/2015 10:45 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > On (12/01/15 10:17), Rick Jones wrote: >> >> What do the perf profiles show? Presumably, loss of TSO/GSO means >> an increase in the per-packet costs, but if the ipsec path >> significantly increases the per-byte costs... > > For ESP-null, there's actually very little work to do - we just > need to add the 8 byte ESP header with an spi and a seq#.. no > crypto work to do.. so the overhead *should* be minimal, else > we've painted ourself into a corner where we can't touch anything > including TCP options like md5. Something of a longshot, but are you sure you are still getting effective CKO/GRO on the receiver? rick jones