Development discussion of WireGuard
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Simon Rozman <simon@rozman.si>, Daniel Lenski <dlenski@gmail.com>,
	 WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Allowing space for packet headers in Wintun Tx/Rx
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:03:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9okm3CTc0Q9sEdQksaGuDS4DV3ceczQX+aSDH-K9R9YOA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38E774FD-16C8-4788-8C31-634A7AA4248A@infradead.org>

Hey guys,

Sorry I'm a bit late to this thread. I'm happy to see there's a
prototype for benchmarking, though I do wonder if this is a bit of
overeager optimization? That is, why is this necessary and does it
actually help?

By returning packets back to the Wintun ring later, more of the ring
winds up being used, which in turn means more cache misses as it spans
additional cache lines. In other words, it seems like this might be
comparing the performance of memcpy+cache no-memcpy+cachemiss. Which
is better, and is it actually measurable? Is it possible that adding
this functionality actually has zero measurable impact on performance?
Given the complexity this adds, it'd be nice to see some numbers to
help make the argument, or perhaps reasoning that's more sophisticated
than my own napkin thoughts here.

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-12 17:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-07 11:49 David Woodhouse
2021-04-07 23:15 ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-08 14:37   ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-08 16:42     ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-08 17:10       ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-08 17:37         ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-10 13:38         ` Simon Rozman
2021-04-10 14:35           ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-10 18:32             ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-12 11:38               ` Simon Rozman
2021-04-12 13:00                 ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-12 17:03                   ` Jason A. Donenfeld [this message]
2021-04-13 22:09                     ` Jason A. Donenfeld

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAHmME9okm3CTc0Q9sEdQksaGuDS4DV3ceczQX+aSDH-K9R9YOA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jason@zx2c4.com \
    --cc=dlenski@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=simon@rozman.si \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).