[Bridge] [RFC PATCH v2] bridge: make it possible for packets to traverse the bridge without hitting netfilter

Imre Palik imrep at amazon.de
Thu Feb 26 10:19:25 UTC 2015


On 02/23/15 17:06, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Imre Palik <imrep.amz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The netfilter code is made with flexibility instead of performance in mind.
>> So when all we want is to pass packets between different interfaces, the
>> performance penalty of hitting netfilter code can be considerable, even when
>> all the firewalling is disabled for the bridge.
>>
>> This change makes it possible to disable netfilter on a per bridge basis.
>> In the case interesting to us, this can lead to more than 15% speedup
>> compared to the case when only bridge-iptables is disabled.
> 
> I wonder what the speed difference is between no-rules (i.e., we hit jump label
> in NF_HOOK), one single (ebtables) accept-all rule, and this patch, for
> the call_nf==false case.

ebtables is completely empty:

# ebtables -L
Bridge table: filter

Bridge chain: INPUT, entries: 0, policy: ACCEPT

Bridge chain: FORWARD, entries: 0, policy: ACCEPT

Bridge chain: OUTPUT, entries: 0, policy: ACCEPT


on some bridges I have iptables rules, but on the critical bridges I am running with iptables disabled.

> I guess your 15% speedup figure is coming from ebtables' O(n) rule
> evaluation overhead?  If yes, how many rules are we talking about?

If you are looking for peculiarities in my setup then here they are:
I am on 4k pages, and perf is not working :-(
(I am trying to fix those too, but that is far from being a low hanging fruit.)
So my guess would be that the packet pipeline doesn't fit in the cache/tlb

> Iff thats true, then the 'better' (I know, it won't help you) solution
> would be to use nftables bridgeport-based verdict maps...
> 
> If thats still too much overhead, then we clearly need to do *something*...
> 
> Thanks,
> Florian
> 



More information about the Bridge mailing list