From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="jknRFWt9" Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3997D63 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 02:09:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6c3363a2b93so4024768b3a.3 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 02:09:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700474949; x=1701079749; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vI6WE+WBYN1XuPQLStil+cx+ieN1FsNdjqfwcx5L8Ng=; b=jknRFWt9CfVEPaa1r8Zinqg6ejbIvUKEubAzYl77Hd//7G7iX+6D83R1/sUefpfJMW WwM8vfUZX+ephu1wQVbwAv3hf9dQCnAG/XKvwRtOsNePhUepRO1VfZVByNWOFWORLY6l xi6G36p8VzlBpcRAlQQ2V2z2rzbWYstTPHZL+NxsrJvq/tbPbBLyhn3BAeWak4O6nHrx I11VBut+ucO8gNgZQnudn4xSHItwP/XtbcFnIO/M3YRn1MO8fr/mX9OoVytbE9JgL/j3 cUt4NkOj2ZXKTAUsSC6/hbTcXJXCibMW7lzkY77gpp59qFwTrQ6AlwElgR7nj73ennHy ZyBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700474949; x=1701079749; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=vI6WE+WBYN1XuPQLStil+cx+ieN1FsNdjqfwcx5L8Ng=; b=mx7tSq3bxwuibqJkr6fi3WfccO4N9kdGDlVJKwAHmdo9Ern/Hb0PRdkdgLtxPwGho0 qiODUH1JWKDLgnBk7zNs3ZSH0XYkXmdxivtpXnDdqhW/HsTJkIKRIEQAQ8F1f3d5JjfC mrzeBrXFBFQkM03x/B3hYON2MU4oklX+zFrQLtA79jmKdGlbVM6XthzPjnQ7/k4fa0kp X0qsKfDX6W+aJ8fRJNTWLfWplUyKz7pybFn3BMVgHjSNe2CrymzuAElwJuZEDvPVeezs qcVPCxkifxkJ0AJ/xg+Ph3YFtLZgp8vqLKf54kQLUSNKuyErLDl4mMeQY2VfO3qYEPnX Gnkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzZDI8i4njpCR7O3d86qfA2vMVui8AO7oOhTczmBjn32cjONd9X S9pIXyzzjpzaTkeLprgy/l2dTmZEq1EKJr8G X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFV0I6knaWy8ukT/hWBk0BRl1RkXst3IkcfIaJUkJC7FnY5VSSZ2Uenb4JtCowQOyiAc6dCnQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1888:b0:6c4:dd5b:9747 with SMTP id x8-20020a056a00188800b006c4dd5b9747mr10297747pfh.17.1700474949092; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 02:09:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from Laptop-X1 ([43.228.180.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14-20020aa782ce000000b0068fcb70ccafsm5732191pfn.129.2023.11.20.02.09.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Nov 2023 02:09:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:09:03 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu To: Eric Dumazet Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, syzkaller@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] wireguard: use DEV_STATS_INC() Message-ID: References: <20231117141733.3344158-1-edumazet@google.com> <170042342319.11006.13933415217196728575.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 08:56:02AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > I thought that, given my concerns, if this was to be committed, at > > least Eric (or you?) would expand on the rationale in the context of > > my concerns while (or before) doing so, rather than just applying this > > without further discussion. As I mentioned, this is fine with me if > > you feel strongly about it, but I would appreciate some expanded > > explanation, just for my own understanding of the matter. > > > > Jason > > Jason, I was in week end mode, so could not reply to your message. > > This fix is rather obvious to me. I do not want to spend too much time on it, > and you gave an ACK if I am not mistaken. > > If you prefer not letting syzbot find other bugs in wireguard (because > hitting this issue first), > this is fine by me. We can ask syzbot team to not include wireguard in > their kernels. Some performance test data may helps. As I don't have good and same configure test machines. I just did a rough test. Client: RHEL9.2, CPU Intel E5-2620, Memory 4096 MB, NIC I350 Server: 6.7.0-rc1, CPU Intel Xeon Silver 4216, 196608 MB, NIC I350 Before patch: === 4in4 TCP_STREAM: 901.05 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 MPTCP_STREAM: 885.22 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 UDP_STREAM: 919.91 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 SCTP_STREAM: 903.12 Mbits/sec === After patch: === 4in4 TCP_STREAM: 901.07 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 MPTCP_STREAM: 885.24 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 UDP_STREAM: 919.91 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 SCTP_STREAM: 903.14 Mbits/sec === Exchange the client/server role: Before patch: === 4in4 TCP_STREAM: 901.08 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 MPTCP_STREAM: 885.12 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 UDP_STREAM: 919.94 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 SCTP_STREAM: 903.09 Mbits/sec === After patch: === 4in4 TCP_STREAM: 901.04 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 MPTCP_STREAM: 885.24 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 UDP_STREAM: 919.91 Mbits/sec === === 4in4 SCTP_STREAM: 903.11 Mbits/sec === The result looks good to me. Thanks Hangbin