So, I have not actually looked at the code, but...
I would expect that not using the kernel stack will force the user to give up a few of the bells and whistles the kernel stack offers. That might still be a decent trade-off, but saying Fast Path offers:
seems to imply the kernel stack would not also be optimzed (to some degree).
Anybody knows the chance of getting that module up-streamed into the kernel proper?
Anything too complex for simple offloading is still handled by the kernel. It's quite clever - it hooks into the network stack so it gets notified of any routing table changes, and anything it can handle it does, anything it can't it lets continue through the default stack.
And that's correct, the Linux Kernel Network Stack is a very generic networking stack that's meant to be used by a wide variety of different devices, if it was massively optimised we wouldn't need fast-path or hardware network acceleration.
It's already in the Qualcomm Code Aurora git repo IIRC, and they occasionally push things upstream, but I'm not sure how much traction this would get for landing in the mainline kernel.
many thanks for your instructions!
Implemented it on Ubiquiti Edgerouter ER-X with LEDE latest trunk and get easily 930MBit NAT-Performance (quick test).
Kernel Modules > Network Support > kmod-fast-classifier and kmod-shortcut-fe (not kmod-shortcut-fe-cm)
I just did this, and the build was fine for my Archer C7v2. However, I had a problem with my VPN setup (IPsec roadwarrior config using Strongswan): I can VPN into my router just fine, but I could not connect to an RDP session behind my router (rdp-client --> ipsec tunnel over internet --> VPN server on router --> RDP server in local LAN)
The rdp connection would start, but then disconnect after about 10 seconds. I needed to do "rmmod fast-classifier" to get everything stable again.
Before the rmmod, fast path seemed to be working ok:
I'm afraid I don't know, working fine here with an OpenVPN server running, but I've not used strongswan before (or even know much about it). Might be better contacting the upstream project on CodeAurora with the issue.
That was it and also: 4.9 modifications have to be removed completely from it to be able to apply the patch on current lede-17.01 branch. (I haven't compiled it yet, but it should be fine.)
Thanks for your help!
I've now enabled SQM, remember that SQM is only on your WAN interface, whereas fastpath will accelerate things locally as well, so not necessarily competing.
Question, if you run SQM on your WAN interface, is the sirq load during a (saturating) speedtest lower with FAst Path enabled or not. If yes, by what magnitude. And final question is SQM@WAN without FastPath already throttling your internet (asked differently, does SQM alone already ax out your CPU)?
I am trying to figure out what to recommend to sqm users (obviously without needing to test fast path myself -EOUTOFTIME)