lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/2] fork_connector: add a fork connector
Guillaume wrote:
> The lmbench shows that the overhead (the construction and the sending
> of the message) in the fork() routine is around 7%.

Thanks for including the numbers. The 7% seems a bit costly, for a bit
more accounting information. Perhaps dean's suggestion, to not use
ascii, will help. I hope so, though I doubt it will make a huge
difference. Was this 7% loss with or without a user level program
consuming the sent messages? I would think that the number of interest
would include a minimal consumer task.

I don't see a good reason to make fork_connector() inline. Since it
calls other subroutines and is not just a few lines, perhaps better to
make it a real routine, so we can see it in "nm --print-size" output and
debug stacks.

Having the "#ifdef CONFIG_FORK_CONNECTOR" chunk of code right in fork.c
seems unfortunate. Can the real fork_connector() be put elsewhere, and
the ifdef put in a header file that makes it a no-op if not configured,
or simply a function declaration, if configured?

What's the status of the connector driver patch? I perhaps wasn't
paying close enough attention, but all I see of it now is a couple of
patches sent to lkml, from Evgeniy Polyakov, in September and January.
I don't see it in my copies of *-mm or recent Linus bk trees. Am I
missing something?

This still seems to me like more apparatus than is desirable, just to
get another form of session id, as best as I can figure it. However
we've already been there, and apparently my concerns were not
persuasive. If one does go down this path, then using this connector
patch is a good an alternative as any I know of. Well, that or relayfs.
My uneducated assumption is that relayfs might at least batch data
packets up into big buffer chunks better, but someone more knowledgeable
than me needs to consider that.

It's a little sad, when almost all the required accounting information
comes out in packed 64 byte records, carefully buffered and sent in
big chunks, to minimize per-task costs. Then this one extra detail,
of <parent-pid, child-pid> requires an entire netlink packet of
its own of what size -- another 50 or 100 bytes? Is this packet
received as a separate data packet, on its own recv(2) system call,
by the user task, not in a big block of packets? The efficiency
of getting this one extra <parent-pid, child-pid> out of the kernel
seems to be one or two orders of magnitude worse than the rest of
the accounting data.

===

Hmmm ... perhaps one could add a _second_ accounting file, cutting and
pasting code in kernel/acct.c and enabling writing additional
information to that second file, using the same mechanisms as now used
for the primary file. Use a more extensible record format for the
second file (say start each record with a magic cookie, a byte record
type and a byte record length, then that many bytes). That way, we have
an escape valve for adding additional record types in the future.
And that way we can efficiently write short records, with just say
a couple of interesting values, and minimal overhead.

Don't worry if the magic cookie appears as part of the raw data. If one
has to resync such a data stream, one can look for a series of records,
each starting with the magic cookie, sensible record type byte, and a
length that ends right at the next such valid record. The occassional
duplication of the same cookie within the data stream would not thwart a
resync for long. And the main purpose of the magic cookie is to make
sure you are still in sync, not reverting to garbage-in, garbage-out,
mode. Almost any magic value other than 0x0000 will suffice for that
purpose.

I just ran a silly little test on my PC desktop Linux box, scanning
/proc/kcore. The _least_ common 2 byte word seen was 0x2B91, with 31
instances in a half-billion words scanned, so I nominate that value for
the magic cookie ;).

The key reason that it might make sense here to adapt the existing
accounting file direct write mechanism, rather than using "connector" or
"relayfs", is that we really do want to get this data to disk initially.
Relayfs is optimized for getting alot of data to a user daemon, and the
connector for sending smaller packets of data to a user daemon. But
accounting processing is sometimes done out of a cron job off-hours.
During the day (the busy hours) you might just want to stash the stuff
with as little performance impact is possible. If one can avoid _any_
other task having to context switch in, in order to get this data on its
way, that is a huge win.

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@engr.sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.161 / U:8.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site