Can folks take a quick look at these? Best, George
Forwarded message: > From: Robert N. M. Watson <[email protected]> > To: George V. Neville-Neil <[email protected]> > Subject: Fwd: Patches to improve SYN performance when under attack > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:31:34 +0100 > > Possibly something for the TCP group to talk about sometime. > > Robert > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Richard Clayton <[email protected]> >> Subject: Patches to improve SYN performance when under attack >> Date: 27 April 2016 at 15:20:20 BST >> To: Robert Watson <[email protected]> >> >> >> As discussed, first patch is Oct 2015, second Apr 2016 >> >> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/659199/ >> >> This patch series takes the steps to use normal TCP/DCCP ehash >> table to store SYN_RECV requests, instead of the private per- >> listener hash table we had until now. >> >> SYNACK skb are now attached to their syn_recv request socket, so >> that we no longer heavily modify listener sk_wmem_alloc. >> >> listener lock is no longer held in fast path, including SYNCOOKIE >> mode. >> >> During my tests, my server was able to process 3,500,000 SYN >> packets per second on one listener and still had available cpu >> cycles. >> >> That is about 2 to 3 order of magnitude what we had with older >> kernels. >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/610370/ >> >> Last known hot point during SYNFLOOD attack is the clearing of >> rx_opt.saw_tstamp in tcp_rcv_state_process() >> >> It is not needed for a listener, so we move it where it matters. >> >> Performance while a SYNFLOOD hits a single listener socket went >> from 5 Mpps to 6 Mpps on my test server (24 cores, 8 NIC RX queues) >> >> >> >> -- >> richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same >> Still you never see the change from day to day >> And no-one notices the customs slip away" > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-transport To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
