At least we can play our sorrows away.
This sounds like it’s positively evil for outfits that rely heavily on virtualisation also.
There isn't a guarantee that will compensate for that any more than if you updated some piece of your software infrastructure to a new version that just got slower.
And while databases try to minimize the number of syscalls they still end up doing a lot of them for read, writeout, flush.
Intel has already dropped and AMD is up. Maybe there's more to move, but first-order effects are at least partially priced in already.
But what about second-order effects? Seems like virtualization should be vulnerable (VMWare and Citrix), but maybe they actually benefit as customers add more capacity.
Software-defined networking and cloud databases should also suffer though it's unclear how to trade these.
AWS, Google Cloud and Azure might benefit as customers add capacity but there's no way to trade the business units. So what about cloud customers where compute costs are already a large percentage of total revenue?
Netflix should be OK but Snap and Twilio could get squeezed hard. Akamai and Cloudflare might have higher costs they can't pass through to customers.
And where's the upside? Who benefits? If the performance hit causes companies to add capacity, maybe semiconductor and DRAM suppliers like Micron would benefit.
I owned Intel back in 2010 when they bought McAfee for 7.8 billion. They said the future of CPU's and chip tech was embedding security on the chip. the real answer was mobile and gpus.
Not only did I immediately know this was a horrendous deal, it clearly showed that the CEO and management had no clue on their own market's desires and direction. At the time, I was hoping they were going to buy Nvidia, it would have been a larger target to digest at 10 bil, but doable by Intel at the time.
The MacAfee purchase turned out to be one of the worst large cooperate purchases in history. Had they invested the 7.8 billion $ blindly into an sp500 index fund, their investment would be worth ~19-20 billion.
Add on top of that the fact that a lot cloud customers over provision (there's good scientific papers on how much spare CPU capacity there is). Cloud service providers that sell things on a per request / real CPU usage model (vs reserved capacity) prob benefit more.
Also, you can't just separate trading in AWS or GCE from the rest of the core business.
Potentially business units of DELL, HP, IBM, ... should do better as people use this as a justification to upgrade overdue hardware they should cover 5% to 10% lower performance (needing more units to cover that).
But this will require you to have the right kind of flash storage, right kind of fs, right kind mount options, and probably a different code path in userspace for DAX vs traditional storage.
So we're a little ways away from this.
That doesn't move anything from kernel land into userspace, certainly not in the app's process in userspace anyway.
There's no talk in the DAX information about how this results in a zero-syscall filesystem API, and I'm not seeing how that would ever work given there would then be zero protections on anything. You need a handle, and that handle needs security. All of that is done today via syscalls, and DAX isn't changing that interface at all. So where is the API to userspace changing?
This work is experimental but you can mmap a single file on a filesystem on this device using new DAX capabilities. Most access will not longer require a syscall.
This comes with all the usual semantics and trappings of mmap plus some additional caveats as to how the filesystem / DAX / hardware is implemented. Most reads/writes will not require a trip to the kernel using the normal read()/write() syscalls. Additionally, there is no RAM page cache baking this mmap instead the device is mapped directly at a virtual address (like DMA).
Finally, flush for these kinds of devices is at the block level implemented using normal instructions and not fsync. Flush is going to be done using the CLWB instruction. See: https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/09/12/deprecate-...
LWN.net has lots of articles and links in their archives from 2016/2017. It's a really good read. Sadly I do not have time to dig more of them up for you. Do a search for site:lwn.net and search for DAX or MAP_DIRECT.
As in, if you call read/write instead of using mmap you're still getting a syscall regardless of if DAX is supported or not. Not everything can use mmap. mmap is not a direct replacement for read/write in all scenarios.
The reply to that comment is accurate: that's a pathological case. Probably an order of magnitude off.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180102222354.qikjmf7...
Real-world use cases introduce much more latency from other sources in the first place.
I'm sticking with an expectation in the 2%-5% range.
In the real world, where code is doing real things besides just entering/exiting itself all day, I think it's going to be a stretch to see even a 5% performance impact, let alone 10%.
But overall, yeah.
The reality is that OLTP databases execution time is not dominated by CPU computation but instead of IO time. Most transactions in OLTP systems fetch a handful of tuples. Most time is dedicated to fetching the tuples (and maybe indices) from disk and then sending them over network.
New disk devices lowered the latency significantly while syscall time has barely gotten better.
So in OLTP databases I expect the impact to be closer to 10% to 15%. So up to 3x over the base case.
The first set of numbers isn't actually unrealistic. Doing lots of primary key lookups over low latency links is fairly common.
The "SELECT 1" benchmark obviously was just to show something close to the worst case.
Latency through loopback on my machine takes 0.07ms. Latency to the machine sitting next to me is 5ms.
We're actually (and to think, today I trotted out that joke about what you call a group of nerds--a well, actually) talking multiple orders of magnitude through which kernel traps are being amplified.
Uh, latency in local gigabit net is a LOT lower than 5ms.
> We're actually (and to think, today I trotted out that joke about what you call a group of nerds--a well, actually) talking multiple orders of magnitude through which kernel traps are being amplified.
I've measured it through network as well, and the impact is smaller, but still large if you just increase the number of connections a bit.
--Oracle's marketing tomorrow, probably
(to their credit, SPARC does fully isolate kernel and user memory pages, so they were ahead of the curve here... for all 10 of their users who run anything other than Oracle DB on their systems.)
The most obvious issue with this benchmark is that Phoronix is testing the latest rcs, with all of their changes, against the last stable version [EDIT: I misread or this changed overnight, see below] that doesn't have PTI integrated, instead of just isolating the PTI patchset. The right way to do this would be to use the same kernel version and either cherry-pick the specific patches or trust that the `nopti` boot parameter sufficiently disables the feature. That alone makes the test worthless.
There is no way this causes a universal 30% perf deduction, especially not for workloads that are IO-bound (i.e., most real-world workloads). This is a significant hit for Intel, but it's not going to reduce global compute capacity by 30% overnight.
EDIT: Looking at the Phoronix page, the benchmark actually appears to use 4.15-rc5 as "pre" and 4.15-some-unspecified-git-pull-from-Dec-31-that-isn't-called-rc6 as "post". I thought I had read 4.14.8 there last night, but may not have. Regardless, the point stands -- these are different versions of the kernel and the tests do not reflect the impact of the PTI patchset.
I'm saying that it's not a reliable measurement of the impact of the PTI patchset. There was a PgSQL performance anecdote [0] (actually tested with the real boot parameters instead of entirely different versions of the kernel) that showed 9% performance decrease posted to LKML, which Linus described as "pretty much in line with expectations". [1]
Quoting further from that mail:
> Something around 5% performance impact of the isolation is what people are looking at.
> Obviously it depends on just exactly what you do. Some loads will hardly be affected at all, if they just spend all their time in user space. And if you do a lot of small system calls, you might see double-digit slowdowns.
So in general, the hit should be around 5%, and "[y]ou might see double-digit slowdowns" seems like the hit on a worst-case workload is hovering closer to the 10% range than 30%. That's also what the anecdote from LKML shows, unlike Phoronix which shows 25%-30% or worse.
This is more of an attrition thing than a staggering loss. With people saying MS patched this in November, it would be interesting to see if people saw a similar 5-10% degradation in Windows benchmarks since that time.
>How often do companies release performance downgrades of that scale?
I don't know which "company" you're referring to here, but substantial changes in kernel performance characteristics are pretty common during the Linux development/RC process, and yes, definitely some workloads will often see changes +/- 10% between the roughly bi-monthly stable kernel releases.
If you're surprised that Linux development is so "lively", you're not alone. That's one of the selling points of other OSes like FreeBSD.
This is a all hands on deck kind of situation. Apple doesn't usually do well with security firedrills like this.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-41...