Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030818AbbD1RT6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:19:58 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:53167 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030375AbbD1RT5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:19:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Havoc Pennington cc: Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Lukasz Skalski , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , One Thousand Gnomes , Tom Gundersen , Jiri Kosina , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Daniel Mack , David Herrmann , Djalal Harouni Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20150413190350.GA9485@kroah.com> <20150423130548.GA4253@kroah.com> <20150423163616.GA10874@kroah.com> <20150423171640.GA11227@kroah.com> <553A4A2F.5090406@samsung.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1653 Lines: 36 On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Havoc Pennington wrote: > btw if I can make a suggestion, it's quite confusing to talk about > "dbus" unqualified when we are talking about implementation issues, > since it muddles bus daemon vs. clients, and also since there are lots > of implementations of the client bindings: > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DBusBindings/ > > For the bus daemon, the only two implementations I know of are the > original one (which uses libdbus as its binding) and kdbus, though. > > I would expect there's no question the bus daemon can be faster, maybe > say 1.5x raw sockets instead of 2.5x, or whatever - something on that > order. Should probably simply stipulate this for discussion purposes: > "someone could optimize the crap out of the bus daemon". The kdbus > question is about whether to eliminate this daemon entirely. As I'm seeing things, we aren't talking about 1.5x vs 2.5x, we're talking about 1000x If the examples that are being used to show the performance advantage of kdbus vs normal dbus are doing the wrong thing, then we need to get some other examples available to people who don't live and breath dbus that 'so things right' so that the kernel developers can see what you think is the real problem and how kdbus addresses it. So far, this 'wrong' example is the only thing that's been posted to show the performance advantage of kdbus. David Lang -- 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/