Hi Eric,
2016-02-15 19:16 GMT+01:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 11:03 +0100, Claudio Scordino wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> 2016-02-12 11:35 GMT+01:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>:
>> > On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 09:53 +0100, Claudio Scordino wrote:
>> >
>> >> This makes the application waste time in entering/exiting the kernel
>> >> level several times.
>> >
>> > syscall overhead is usually small. Real cost is actually getting to the
>> > socket objects (fd manipulation), that you wont avoid with a
>> > super-syscall anyway.
>>
>> Thank you for answering. I see your point.
>>
>> However, assuming that a switch from user-space to kernel-space (and
>> back) needs about 200nsec of computation (which I guess is a
>> reasonable value for a 3GHz x86 architecture), the 50th receiver
>> experiences a latency of about 10 usec. In some domains (e.g.,
>> finance) this delay is not negligible.
>
> I thought these domains were using multicast.
They don't :)
There are a couple of reasons behind their choice:
- Multicast works only in SOCK_DGRAM (i.e. unreliable)
- For a limited number of receivers (e.g. 50) and depending on the
data size, the latency of multicast is almost equal to the one of TCP
>
>>
>> Moving the "fan-out" code into kernel space would remove this waste of
>> time. IMHO, the latency reduction would pay back the 100 lines of code
>> for adding a new syscall.
>
> It wont reduce the latency at all, and add a lot of maintenance hassle.
>
> syscall overhead is about 40 ns.
I thought it was slightly higher. Does this time also include the
interrupt return to go back to user-space ?
> This is the time taken to transmit ~50 bytes on 10Gbit link.
>
> 40ns * 50 = 2 usec only.
>
> Feel free to implement your idea and test it, you'll discover the added
> complexity is not worth it.
Honestly, I can't see how it could be that difficult: the kernel-side
code could just iterate on the existing syscall...
Can you please elaborate a bit further to let me understand why it
would be that complex ?
Many thanks and best regards,
Claudio
