Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-04-04 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:35:13 +0300 ValdikSS wrote: > I'm trying to increase OpenVPN throughput by optimizing tun manipulations, > too. > Right now I have more questions than answers. > > I get about 800 Mbit/s speeds via OpenVPN with authentication and encryption >

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-04-04 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 07:03:09PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > > Rather than bodge AF_PACKET onto TUN, why not just create a new device type > > and control it from something modern like netlink.

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-04-04 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 04:30:55PM +0300, ValdikSS wrote: > I'm trying to increase OpenVPN throughput by optimizing tun manipulations, > too. > Right now I have more questions than answers. > > I get about 800 Mbit/s speeds via OpenVPN with authentication and encryption > disabled on a local

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-04-04 Thread ValdikSS
I'm trying to increase OpenVPN throughput by optimizing tun manipulations, too. Right now I have more questions than answers. I get about 800 Mbit/s speeds via OpenVPN with authentication and encryption disabled on a local machine with OpenVPN server and client running in a different network

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-04-03 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:28:57 +0200 > Guus Sliepen wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:20:50PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> >> > >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-03-31 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:28:57 +0200 Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:20:50PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a > > >> tun device in userspace. [...] What would be the right way to do

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-03-31 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:20:50PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a > >> tun device in userspace. [...] What would be the right way to do this? > >> > > Personally I think tun could benefit greatly if it were implemented as >

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-03-31 Thread David Miller
From: Tom Herbert Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:18:48 -0400 > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Guus Sliepen wrote: >> I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a >> tun device in userspace. For sockets, one can use

Re: Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-03-31 Thread Tom Herbert
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Guus Sliepen wrote: > I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a > tun device in userspace. For sockets, one can use sendmmsg()/recvmmsg(), > but a tun fd is not a socket fd, so this doesn't work. I'm see several >

Best way to reduce system call overhead for tun device I/O?

2016-03-29 Thread Guus Sliepen
I'm trying to reduce system call overhead when reading/writing to/from a tun device in userspace. For sockets, one can use sendmmsg()/recvmmsg(), but a tun fd is not a socket fd, so this doesn't work. I'm see several options to allow userspace to read/write multiple packets with one syscall: -