linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file

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, 6 Nov 2018 15:48:40 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, longman@...hat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:04:45 +0000 Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
> > This patch introduces a new /proc/stat2 file that is identical to the
> > regular 'stat' except that it zeroes all hard irq statistics. The new
> > file is a drop in replacement to stat for users that need performance.
> 
> For a while now, I've been thinking over ways to improve the
> performance of collecting various bits of kernel information. I don't
> think that a proliferation of special-purpose named bag-of-fields file
> variants is the right answer, because even if you add a few info-file
> variants, you're still left with a situation where a given file
> provides a particular caller with too little or too much information.
> I'd much rather move to a model in which userspace *explicitly* tells
> the kernel which fields it wants, with the kernel replying with just
> those particular fields, maybe in their raw binary representations.
> The ASCII-text bag-of-everything files would remain available for
> ad-hoc and non-performance critical use, but programs that cared about
> performance would have an efficient bypass. One concrete approach is
> to let users open up today's proc files and, instead of read(2)ing a
> text blob, use an ioctl to retrieve specified and targeted information
> of the sort that would normally be encoded in the text blob. Because
> callers would open the same file when using either the text or binary
> interfaces, little would have to change, and it'd be easy to implement
> fallbacks when a particular system doesn't support a particular
> fast-path ioctl.

Yup.  There are better ways of getting information out of the kernel,
to say the least.

It would be interesting to know precisely which stat fields the
database-which-shall-not-be-named is looking for.  Then we could cook
up a very whizzy way of getting at the info.

A downside of the stat2 approach is that applications will need to be
rebuilt.  And hopefully when people do this, they'll open
"/etc/my-app-name/symlink-to-proc-stat" (or use per-application config)
so they won't need a rebuild when we add /proc/stat3!

A /proc/change-how-stat-works tunable would avoid the need to rebuild
applications.  But if a system still has some applications which want
the irq info then that doesn't work.

It's all very sad, really.

btw,

> +The stat2 file acts as a performance alternative to /proc/stat for workloads
> +and systems that care and are under heavy irq load. In order to to be completely
> +compatible, /proc/stat and /proc/stat2 are identical with the exception that the
> +later will show 0 for any (hard)irq-related fields. This refers particularly

"latter"

> +to the "intr" line and 'irq' column for that aggregate in the cpu line.

btw2, please quantify "poor performance".  That helps us determine how
much we care about all of this!