Development discussion of WireGuard
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: [WireGuard] Major Queueing Algorithm Simplification
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:24:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9omqGyouvfT72Z3pC4YYWoJ_yLCuCZ6zZ8BG7QpJh+xKQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

Hey,

This might be of interest...

Before, every time I got a GSO superpacket from the kernel, I'd split
it into little packets, and then queue each little packet as a
different parallel job.

Now, every time I get a GSO super packet from the kernel, I split it
into little packets, and queue up that whole bundle of packets as a
single parallel job. This means that each GSO superpacket expansion
gets processed on a single CPU. This greatly simplifies the algorithm,
and delivers mega impressive performance throughput gains.

In practice, what this means is that if you call send(tcp_socket_fd,
buffer, biglength), then each 65k contiguous chunk of buffer will be
encrypted on the same CPU. Before, each 1.5k contiguous chunk would be
encrypted on the same CPU.

I had thought about doing this a long time ago, but didn't, due to
reasons that are now fuzzy to me. I believe it had something to do
with latency. But at the moment, I think this solution will actually
reduce latency on systems with lots of cores, since it means those
cores don't all have to be synchronized before a bundle can be sent
out. I haven't measured this yet, and I welcome any such tests. The
magic commit for this is [1], if you'd like to compare before and
after.

Are there any obvious objections I've overlooked with this simplified approach?

Thanks,
Jason

[1] https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/commit/?id=7901251422e55bcd55ab04afb7fb390983593e39

             reply	other threads:[~2016-11-04 13:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-04 13:24 Jason A. Donenfeld [this message]
2016-11-04 14:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2016-11-04 16:36   ` 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=CAHmME9omqGyouvfT72Z3pC4YYWoJ_yLCuCZ6zZ8BG7QpJh+xKQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jason@zx2c4.com \
    --cc=toke@toke.dk \
    --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).