linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:	Havoc Pennington <hp@...ox.com>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Lukasz Skalski <l.skalski@...sung.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> btw if I can make a suggestion, it's quite confusing to talk about
> "dbus" unqualified when we are talking about implementation issues,
> since it muddles bus daemon vs. clients, and also since there are lots
> of implementations of the client bindings:
>
>  http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DBusBindings/
>
> For the bus daemon, the only two implementations I know of are the
> original one (which uses libdbus as its binding) and kdbus, though.
>
> I would expect there's no question the bus daemon can be faster, maybe
> say 1.5x raw sockets instead of 2.5x, or whatever - something on that
> order. Should probably simply stipulate this for discussion purposes:
> "someone could optimize the crap out of the bus daemon". The kdbus
> question is about whether to eliminate this daemon entirely.

As I'm seeing things, we aren't talking about 1.5x vs 2.5x, we're talking about 
1000x

If the examples that are being used to show the performance advantage of kdbus 
vs normal dbus are doing the wrong thing, then we need to get some other 
examples available to people who don't live and breath dbus that 'so things 
right' so that the kernel developers can see what you think is the real problem 
and how kdbus addresses it.

So far, this 'wrong' example is the only thing that's been posted to show the 
performance advantage of kdbus.

David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/