Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:03:23 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
Cc:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.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>, "Theodore T'so" <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] kdbus: add documentation

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:05 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 05:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:49:00AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>>> While I agree that there should be a way for userspace to get the list of
>>>> supported operations, userspace apps will only actually care about that
>>>> once, when they begin talking to kdbus, because (ignoring the live kernel
>>>> patching that people have been working on recently) the list of supported
>>>> operations isn't going to change while the system is running.  While a u64
>>>> copy has relatively low overhead, it does have overhead, and that is very
>>>> significant when you consider part of the reason some people want kdbus is
>>>> for the performance gain.  Especially for those automotive applications that
>>>> have been mentioned which fire off thousands of messages during start-up,
>>>> every little bit of performance is significant.
>>>
>>> A single u64 in a structure is not going to be measurable at all,
>>> processors just copy memory too fast these days for 4 extra bytes to be
>>> noticable.
>>
>> It depends on the definition of measurable, I suppose, but this statement
>> appears incorrect to me. In some cases (e.g., kdbus_msg_info) we're talking
>> about *two* u64 fields (kernel_gs, kernel_msg_flags) being used to pass back
>> sets of valid flags. That's 16 bytes, and it definitely makes a difference.
>> Simply running a loop that does a naive memcpy() in a tight user-space
>> loop (code below), I see the following for the execution of 1e9 loops:
>>
>>     Including the two extra u64 fields: 3.2 sec
>>     Without the two extra u64 fields:   2.6 sec
>>
>> On the same box, doing 1e9 calls to getppid() (i.e., pretty much the
>> simplest syscall, giving us a rough measure of the context switch) takes
>> 68 seconds. In other words, the cost of copying those 16 bytes is about 1%
>> of the base context switch/syscall cost. I assume the costs of copying
>> those 16 bytes across the kernel-user-space boundary would not be cheaper,
>> but have not tested that. If my assumption is correct, then 1% seems a
>> significant figure to me in an API whose raison d'être is speed.
>
> I have no idea how this is related to any kdbus ioctl?
>
> A 16byte copy does not affect the performance of kdbus message
> transactions in any way that matters.
>

Sorry for jumping in so late.  Since this version of kdbus was sent,
I've been on vacation for part of the time and I had the flu for the
rest of the time.

What are the performance goals of kdbus?  How fast is it ever intended
to be?  The reason I ask is that, in the current design, kdbus
collects "metadata" (credentials and other identifying information,
collected in kdbus_meta_proc_collect) from the sender of every message
*at send time*. [1]  This is slow, and it will always be slow.  The
slowness of this operation will, in my personal system performance
crystal ball, overshadow the cost of a 16 byte copy by several orders
of magnitude.

[1] After much discussion last time around, I'm at least convinced
that the kdbus people have reasons to like the idea of capturing
metadata for each message.  I still think the design is wrong even
from a security standpoint, but right now I'm talking about
performance.  If you want the data plane to be fast, it should be
separated from the control plane as much as possible, and this design
is the opposite.

--Andy
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists