On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 11:38:50AM -0500, Dave Voutila wrote:
> Mike Larkin <mlarkin@nested.page> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 07:38:16PM +0100, Jan Klemkow wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 02:08:43PM -0800, Mike Larkin wrote:
> >> > Does this "just work" no matter what guests I run? That's really all I care
> >> > about.
> >>
> >> Here is my current diff for checksum offloading in vmd(8).
> >>
> >> I tested the following combination of features:
> >>
> >>  - Debian/Linux and OpenBSD-current guests
> >>  - OpenBSD-current vio(4) w/o all offloading features
> >>  - Linux, OpenBSD and Hostsystem via veb(4) and vlan(4)
> >>  - IPv4 and IPv6 with tcpbench(1)
> >>  - local interface locked lladdr
> >>  - local interface dhcp
> >>
> >> Further tests are welcome!
> >
> > Not sure about dv@, but I can't really review this. it's hundreds of lines
> > of changes in vmd vionet that require a level of understanding of tap(4) and
> > in virtio/vionet (and the network stack in general) that I don't have.
> > When I did the original vionet in vmd years ago it was pretty straightforward
> > since the spec (for *all* virtio) was only like 20 pages. I was able to write
> > that code in a weekend. now that we have bolted on all this other stuff, I
> > don't feel comfortable giving oks in this area anymore since there is no way
> > I can look at this and know if it's right or not. I think you need a network
> > stack person to ok this, *and* explain what the ramifications are for vmd
> > in general. It looks like vmd is doing inspection of every packet now? I
> > dont think we want that.
> 
> I've spent time digging into this and better understand it now. I'm also
> happy now with how the current diff isn't expanding pledges for vionet.
> 
> It feels overkill to have to poke every packet,

It don't have to be this way.  My first versions of this diff was
without all this packet parsing stuff in vmd(8)[1].  I'll try reproduce
the old version till c2k25 to show you the difference.

[1]: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=172381275602917

> but I do manage to see a
> small improvement in the one test I did using iperf3 sending from host
> to guest. It's only about 1-2% gain in throughput on my Intel x1c gen10
> and less than 1% on my newer Ryzen AI 350 machine. (This was using a
> -current snapshot for the guest.)
> 
> I did this both with the "local interface" (where we already inspect
> each packet to intercept DHCP packets) and one added to a veb(4) device
> with and accompanying host-side vport(4).
> 
> My hypothesis is the gain is mostly due to offloading work from the
> single-vcpu guest to the host vionet tx or rx threads.
> 
> Is it worth it? Especially knowing we're technically shortcutting the
> actual spec as written by attesting for every packet checksum being
> good? /shrug
> 
> Does someone have a better benchmark showing this moves the needle?

Its not worth it, to benchmark the checksum offloading here.  I don't do
this diff for checksum offloading.  This is just a dependency for LRO and
TSO in vmd(8) which is the real performance kicker.

I already showed mlarkin@ at the h2k24 that TSO 10x the network
performance with a PoC diff for TSO in vmd(4).  It pushed the guest to
host network performance from ~1 Gbit/s to ~10 Gbit/s back than.

Thanks,
Jan