Re: [PATCH RFC xfrm-next v3 0/8] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:55:45AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 11:40:39AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:37:06PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 07:59:27AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 12:56:16 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > I have TX traces too and can add if RX are not sufficient. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The perf trace is good, but for those of us not intimately familiar
> > > > > with xfrm, could you provide some analysis here?
> > > > 
> > > > The perf trace presented is for RX path of IPsec crypto offload mode. In that
> > > > mode, decrypted packet enters the netdev stack to perform various XFRM specific
> > > > checks.
> > > 
> > > Can you provide the perf traces and analysis for the TX side too? That
> > > would be interesting in particular, because the policy and state lookups
> > > there happen still in software.
> > 
> > Single core TX (crypto mode) from the same run:
> > Please notice that it is not really bottleneck, probably RX caused to the situation
> > where TX was not executed enough. It is also lighter path than RX.
> 
> Thanks for this! How many policies and SAs were installed when you ran
> this? A run with 'many' policies and SAs would be interesting, in
> particualar a comparison between crypto and full offload. That would
> show us where the performance of the full offload comes from.

It was 160 CPU machine with policy/SA per-CPU and direction. In total,
320 policies and 320 SAs.

Thanks