From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A4EC19F2D for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 03:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4M1zSk5MS1z307F for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 13:43:50 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=aj.id.au header.i=@aj.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=sgnSuwqh; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=cqbrdtkh; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=aj.id.au (client-ip=64.147.123.25; helo=wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=andrew@aj.id.au; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=aj.id.au header.i=@aj.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=sgnSuwqh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=cqbrdtkh; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4M1zRs4SZvz2xGx for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 13:43:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5E032008C0; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 23:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 08 Aug 2022 23:43:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aj.id.au; h=cc :cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1660016581; x=1660102981; bh=ElXk4KBItU Yfm+wr85Cn0Gn1spjtq3AioEeFPmARxKU=; b=sgnSuwqh743+fAO5o3Gi8wfbdC fwA334MI87t0s1Zogfnk77++i/7uorIpDY5gPwO/J0RuXxNSSXDZOmVvy/3mtFMs jZeGT6+Uu0LwrrAzU1Y+cc/YVQCPxlqiFArfjCTHP5BqcUxkISmshhPmg0yz9iEp LcO2qYQN4pCrRv6JeqeTi/UYTppGM5oDTxFgcjSXrJ9xYWq6kPMJDQFLTWzQ5KVh 4ZuiYlwDVGXGyUnMMwUtP4ZJDF6dAIQ5RYtF5yU8J8Pvfy3l7wl0sEHU5ITH/kTw pr9F1WXdgYBCMGfGu8PAE4ovM6+TCPk5LKxBTwj2iU2TRFF0F5ihDhENCNBA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1660016581; x=1660102981; bh=ElXk4KBItUYfm+wr85Cn0Gn1spjt q3AioEeFPmARxKU=; b=cqbrdtkhMBr9aOpqH4eYolBk5O2fOs26T0iaPgk1KqK5 uI7lPGxq9rTM4q6mFERCAyUsfmBrGf6kaj1YR1B+HJCN2rXk9NE5Mz1uJNJOvl7W 6Bwa4E6XiTWiT1OBEMiMzlC3UO14yWykUUZzauQRDLLg2GndO8Pa3ncmCR/bmqnW 6Sw99edHCbXn4ytKHMRTg5pmM1r9OPVCGUEB95lBtfjgzwFkri+oFYl7FyVAl+dA stV9kUSQNYCOyWWL15w4l3oE0lTcjBB7D8CXp/gEJ+aX03xoomq5dvhNVwklN5OY L4HWW7GhcinRyMaSMinh7t67RPusok2y9aI3kyAuSA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrvdefledgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftehn ughrvgifucflvghffhgvrhihfdcuoegrnhgurhgvfiesrghjrdhiugdrrghuqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeekvdekjeekgfejudffteetgeejkeetteduvedtffdtledutdfhheev feetkeeiteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpegrnhgurhgvfiesrghjrdhiugdrrghu X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: idfb84289:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id CAF951700086; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 23:43:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-758-ge0d20a54e1-fm-20220729.001-ge0d20a54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0fcf0cf5-e7b0-484d-a3d9-27f288884685@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3df049fc-e5ec-449e-b696-a2ca86c37ed3@www.fastmail.com> <7f80cb3f-def3-f9ca-58f2-eebe053dfd89@yadro.com> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:12:38 +0930 From: "Andrew Jeffery" To: "Ed Tanous" , "Alexander Amelkin" Subject: Re: Can we improve the experience of working on OpenBMC? Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Benjamin Fair , openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, Brad Bishop , Heyi Guo , jebr@google.com, scody@google.com Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, at 07:09, Ed Tanous wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 2:27 PM Alexander Amelkin wrote: >> >> 14. D-Bus may become a bottleneck or a slowing factor (due to the >> context switching overhead) for >> the situations when two processes are communicating actively. A standard >> POSIX IPC like pipes, >> mq or shm could become a solution (with d-bus or any other method used >> as an aid to negotiate >> names, keys, or whatever other credentials needed to access a common IPC). > > FWIW, in the original context of "a single repo would help with these > things" I don't think either of these would be helped with a > rearrangement of code. > > With that said, lots of people dislike dbus. There are performance > critical things (SOL, KVM, Virtual media) that have completely avoided > it. If you have a proposal for something better, I'd highly recommend > writing up a design doc. Yep, fixing this requires addressing specific concerns. Patches or design docs would be helpful, or even just a list of specific things that we think are a concern. > >> >> WBR, Alexander >> >> P.S. All in all, I think d-bus wasn't a good choice of IPC for a system >> running on a low-performance single-core ARM chip. u-bmc might be something to look at here? Andrew