Date:   Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:49:12 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avagin@...tuozzo.com,
        ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, serge@...lyn.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] netns: isolate seqnums to use per-netns
 locks

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:16:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 03:56:28PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:52:47PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:52AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > Now that it's possible to have a different set of uevents in different
> > > > > network namespaces, per-network namespace uevent sequence numbers are
> > > > > introduced. This increases performance as locking is now restricted to the
> > > > > network namespace affected by the uevent rather than locking
> > > > > everything.
> > > > 
> > > > Numbers please.  I personally expect that the netlink mc_list issues
> > > > will swamp any benefit you get from this.
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't see how this would be the case. The gist of this is:
> > > Everytime you send a uevent into a network namespace *not* owned by
> > > init_user_ns you currently *have* to take mutex_lock(uevent_sock_list)
> > > effectively blocking the host from processing uevents even though
> > > - the uevent you're receiving might be totally different from the
> > >   uevent that you're sending
> > > - the uevent socket of the non-init_user_ns owned network namespace
> > >   isn't even recorded in the list.
> > > 
> > > The other argument is that we now have properly isolated network
> > > namespaces wrt to uevents such that each netns can have its own set of
> > > uevents. This can either happen by a sufficiently privileged userspace
> > > process sending it uevents that are only dedicated to that specific
> > > netns. Or - and this *has been true for a long time* - because network
> > > devices are *properly namespaced*. Meaning a uevent for that network
> > > device is *tied to a network namespace*. For both cases the uevent
> > > sequence numbering will be absolutely misleading. For example, whenever
> > > you create e.g. a new veth device in a new network namespace it
> > > shouldn't be accounted against the initial network namespace but *only*
> > > against the network namespace that has that device added to it.
> > 
> > Eric, I did the testing. Here's what I did:
> > 
> > I compiled two 4.17-rc1 Kernels:
> > - one with per netns uevent seqnums with decoupled locking
> > - one without per netns uevent seqnums with decoupled locking
> > 
> > # Testcase 1:
> > Only Injecting Uevents into network namespaces not owned by the initial user
> > namespace.
> > - created 1000 new user namespace + network namespace pairs
> > - opened a uevent listener in each of those namespace pairs
> > - injected uevents into each of those network namespaces 10,000 times meaning
> >   10,000,000 (10 million) uevents were injected. (The high number of
> >   uevent injections should get rid of a lot of jitter.)
> > - Calculated the mean transaction time.
> > - *without* uevent sequence number namespacing:
> >   67 μs
> > - *with* uevent sequence number namespacing:
> >   55 μs
> > - makes a difference of 12 μs
> > 
> > # Testcase 2:
> > Injecting Uevents into network namespaces not owned by the initial user
> > namespace and network namespaces owned by the initial user namespace.
> > - created 500 new user namespace + network namespace pairs
> > - created 500 new network namespace pairs
> > - opened a uevent listener in each of those namespace pairs
> > - injected uevents into each of those network namespaces 10,000 times meaning
> >   10,000,000 (10 million) uevents were injected. (The high number of
> >   uevent injections should get rid of a lot of jitter.)
> > - Calculated the mean transaction time.
> > - *without* uevent sequence number namespacing:
> >   572 μs
> > - *with* uevent sequence number namespacing:
> >   514 μs
> > - makes a difference of 58 μs
> > 
> > So there's performance gain. The third case would be to create a bunch
> > of hanging processes that send SIGSTOP to themselves but do not actually
> > open a uevent socket in their respective namespaces and then inject
> > uevents into them. I expect there to be an even more performance
> > benefits since the rtnl_table_lock() isn't hit in this case because
> > there are no listeners.
> 
> I did the third test-case as well so:
> - created 500 new user namespace + network namespace pairs *without
>   uevent listeners*
> - created 500 new network namespace pairs *without uevent listeners*
> - injected uevents into each of those network namespaces 10,000 times meaning
>   10,000,000 (10 million) uevents were injected. (The high number of
>   uevent injections should get rid of a lot of jitter.)
> - Calculated the mean transaction time.
> - *without* uevent sequence number namespacing:
>   206 μs
> - *with* uevent sequence number namespacing:
>   163 μs
> - makes a difference of 43 μs
> 
> So this test-case shows performance improvement as well.

Just for fun, I did a simple statistical anlysis using t-tests and they
all show significant differences at alpha-level 0.001 (Which I chose
because it seemed 0.05 is a bit too lax.).

Testcase 1:
        Welch Two Sample t-test

data:  x1 and y1
t = 405.16, df = 18883000, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 12.14949 12.26761
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
 68.48594  56.27739

Testcase 2:
        Welch Two Sample t-test

data:  x2 and y2
t = 38.685, df = 19682000, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 55.10630 60.98815
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
 572.9684  514.9211

Testcase 3:
        Welch Two Sample t-test

data:  x3 and y3
t = 58.37, df = 17711000, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 41.77860 44.68178
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y
 207.2632  164.0330

Thanks!
Christian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists