Steffen Klassert <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:50:06PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > }
> > @@ -552,11 +517,6 @@ void __init xfrm_input_init(void)
> > if (err)
> > gro_cells.cells = NULL;
> >
> > - secpath_cachep = kmem_cache_create("secpath_cache",
> > - sizeof(struct sec_path),
> > - 0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC,
> > - NULL);
>
> This is not so nice. Usually we need a secpath per packet for IPsec.
> With removing the cache, we have to kmalloc a secpath for each packet.
> This might have some performance impact.
I would expect that the extension allocations come from
kmalloc-96 cache in 'ipsec only' case.
I can run a few IPSEC benchmark tests to see if there is measureable
impact.
