From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx492jv7pC8MvYJqcY4lN1Lud7jUlfaRszBqC8FJWwL8Mp0LPhJYdoJquuIDiF9b1O97+g0fF ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1524325755; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=l38j5y/mPG2oF7olH+23kN3nPTF388UfpwbFF9+BzU4joZf7ScLp0gEFAP2khtzyzg uCMZftnLPtLAGuwx6X/5d/vqM4Wqs3mUAFfxbJKtr66lTuKOTzqLchUb9b6+cHVkoLU1 kFML683UfY4GUjRaXHePn+oRRt+F70vE5RoURUAD7Tum2pWy56LoEFpbkgMbYZivQCj1 AmVA6iPnIWbf9h5GLeRovEfUiZAoDNhWMN3sL5nJ90AUnVQzYNK6YQU0KGhlGm32pEdr GhZl8svUzIRXEayuMG4Z5LzarC23ZwBADQE+wL1qApfkAmdr9VZZ1jp7dncGIO2qY5G7 Z7IA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:date:from:arc-authentication-results; bh=5AEvJrLsfFLSXPhfIKy7GBFOTogRtb+gOp25x1MYDBg=; b=PZd1tjbymenbBhETkrCZKvYE/crUoyaC/a6R2twKTR4ALBMi2D8SuYTd6Z2mEUQRjv HRENQP86cySwNlCSobiHaHN8UJ9S4xqTAP6WKMHCjiKwjiNRe0EoGQZ02WuapbxL5Wos PUe9G6KS+P+CpBtLatc7usehgD24lz9xAOHwwhqeSitlluucjCnFJPaVLpXFE4cQK5mg 988LDFoqjHbrDeFHSplQvYuJ94Qha/QMcXw3m1tSt1iw6wCYfEAz+GItouVlnwkhIYGK 4f+Ycfwn66Ll3VY+92F3+HyCCqxZUn8yEzYAl4Av7YMUvU0JFrOP0zmwEvFLwu5XHsuy 4zqQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of christian.brauner@canonical.com designates 91.189.89.112 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=christian.brauner@canonical.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of christian.brauner@canonical.com designates 91.189.89.112 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=christian.brauner@canonical.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com From: Christian Brauner X-Google-Original-From: Christian Brauner Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:49:12 +0200 To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avagin@virtuozzo.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, serge@hallyn.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] netns: isolate seqnums to use per-netns locks Message-ID: <20180421154910.GA31964@gmail.com> References: <20180418152106.18519-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> <20180418152106.18519-3-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> <874lk8wj1j.fsf@xmission.com> <20180418215246.GA24000@gmail.com> <20180420135627.GA8350@gmail.com> <20180420161643.GA15182@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180420161643.GA15182@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: =?utf-8?q?1598097857058546891?= X-GMAIL-MSGID: =?utf-8?q?1598371403549418018?= X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 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