Re: [PATCH net-next v9 0/5] TLS read_sock performance scalability
"Chuck Lever" <[email protected]> Mon, 04 May 2026 17:59:12 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.kernel-tls-handshake,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, May 4, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > 2026-05-03, 21:34:01 +0200, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On 5/3/26 3:04 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:48:07 -0400 Chuck Lever wrote: >> >> I'd like to encourage in-kernel kTLS consumers (i.e., NFS and >> >> NVMe/TCP) to coalesce on the use of read_sock. When I suggested >> >> this to Hannes, he reported a few performance scalability issues >> >> with read_sock. >> > >> > Meaning, this series achieves.. what right now? >> > I mean - the headline is "performance scalability" and there's no >> > performance testing result in any of the messages :S >> > Patch 5 for instance "seems logical" but how much difference does >> > it make? >> >> The cover Subject: line has not been changed so all the revisions of >> this series can be located easily. > > (not to bikeshed, links to lore also do that) > >> The cover letter makes it clear that the series is now only a clean-up >> series. Since async_capable is set to false for TLSv1.3, there is no >> performance benefit to these changes, so I don't intend to post a >> motivation for it based on performance. > > Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought there was a somewhat noticeable > benefit to the "suppress spurious wakeups" patch (not +20%, but at > least improved behavior for some users of kTLS), and maybe the "flush > backlog" one. > > Patch 2 may still be beneficial (though it's now mixing 2 separate > changes), and patch 1 is a very reasonable code cleanup. > > Patch 4 does feel like a pretty large amount of churn if it has no > observable benefit. There is potential benefit to eliminating spurious wake-ups, but nothing I've found to be observable at the application level. >> We'd really like >> to get TLS KeyUpdate working for in-kernel TLS consumers, so anything >> that can move this process forward is welcome. > > But net/tls doesn't need any changes for that, right? >> 1. The in-kernel TLS consumers need to reliably and securely handle TLS >> Alerts. That is coming in the next series I plan to post. This series will make changes to net/tls/. -- Chuck Lever