5 ms·

Web servers doing kernel bypass for zero-copy networking? Do you have a specific example in mind? I'm curious.

• kentonv 3y ago
  Probably the most common example is sendfile() for writing file contents out to a socket without reading them into userspace: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/sendfile.2.html https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/sendfile.2.html
  • arter4 3y ago
    Yes, I knew about sendfile() but I wasnt't aware of any web server using that (though I know Kafka uses it). Then I found out Apache supports it via the EnableSendfile directive. Nice. >This directive controls whether httpd may use the sendfile support from the kernel to transmit file contents to the client. By default, when the handling of a request requires no access to the data within a file -- for example, when delivering a static file -- Apache httpd uses sendfile to deliver the file contents without ever reading the file if the OS supports it.
    • kentonv 3y ago
      I'd expect most serious web servers support it. I've written one that does (workerd), it's not too hard. That said, it's tricky to use if the server also does TLS termination... then you need kTLS, which is a much bigger can of worms.
    • nh2 3y ago
      Pretty much all modern Linux web servers support sendfile(). Examples: * nginx: [1] * Haskell webserver module: [2] * caddy: [3] [1]: https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#sendfile https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#sen... [2]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/warp-3.3.28/docs/Network-Wai-Handler-Warp-Internal.html#g:6 https://hackage.haskell.org/package/warp-3.3.28/docs/Network... [3]: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/pull/5022 https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/pull/5022
  • mrfox321 3y ago
    Isn't that the opposite? That is, bypassing user space, not kernel space?
    • kentonv 3y ago
      Oh, hmm, yeah, perhaps OP meant something more like using raw sockets to get packets directly into userspace without relying on the kernel to arrange them into streams? I'm not very familiar with that though.
  • loeg 3y ago
    Sendfile isn’t kernel bypass.
• dist1ll 3y ago
  The most common example is DPDK [1]. It's a framework for building bespoke networking stacks that are usable from userspace, without involving the kernel. You'll find DPDK mentioned a lot in the networking/HPC/data center literature. An example of a backend framework that uses DPDK is the seastar framework [2]. Also, I recently stumbled upon a paper for efficient RPC networks in data centers [3]. If you want to learn more, the p99 conference has tons of speakers talking about some interesting challenges in that space. [1] https://www.dpdk.org/ https://www.dpdk.org/. [2] https://github.com/scylladb/seastar https://github.com/scylladb/seastar [3] https://github.com/erpc-io/eRPC https://github.com/erpc-io/eRPC
  • arter4 3y ago
    Interesting. I hear a lot more about sendfile(), kTLS and general kernel space tricks than I do about DPDK and userspace networking, but maybe it's just me. I do wonder what trend is going to win: bypass the kernel or embrace the kernel for everything? The way I see it, latency decreases either way (as long as you don't have to switch back and forth between kernel and user space), but userspace seems better from a security standpoint. Then again, everyone is doing eBPF, so probably the "embrace the kernel" approach is going to win. Who knows.
    • pclmulqdq 3y ago
      The people who use DPDK and the like are a lot quieter about it. The nature of kernel development means that people tend to hear about what you're doing, while DPDK and userspace networking tends to happen in more proprietary settings. That said, I'm not sure many people write webservers in DPDK, since the Kernel is pretty well suited to webservers (sendfile, etc.). Most applications that use kernel-bypass are more specialized.
  • ori_b 3y ago
    The downside, of course, is that each program owns one instance of the hardware. Applications don't share the network card. This isn't a general purpose solution. That may be acceptable for your purposes, or it may not.