-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 07:54:23PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 12:04:20PM +0100, David Hobach wrote:
> > On 2/8/25 15:11, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > We've spent some time recently on improving qrexec performance,
> > > specifically lower the overhead on making a qrexec call. To have some
> > > visibility into effects, we started with adding simple performance
> > > tests:
> > > https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-core-admin/pull/647
> > > 
> > > Here I'll focus on just one test that is making 500 calls and measure
> > > the total time in seconds - the lower the better.
> > > 
> > > Here are the results:
> > > baseline (qrexec 4.3.1): fedora-41-xfce_exec 53.047245962000034[1]
> > > remove qubes-rpc-multiplexer[2] (qrexec 4.3.2): fedora-41-xfce_exec 
> > > 21.449519581999994 [3]
> > > cache system info for policy[4]: fedora-41-xfce_exec 9.012277056000016[5]
> > > 
> > > So, in total over 5x improvement :)
> > 
> > That sounds great and I look forward to that change. Thanks a lot in 
> > advance! :)
> > 
> > However for an overall improvement in user experience not only the qrexec 
> > speed is relevant, but also the time to get the qrexec service running 
> > inside a newly started VM.
> > For example on my machine a qrexec call on a running VM takes ~530ms 
> > (hopefully less in the future with the changes you mentioned) and one on a 
> > small non-running VM 6s, out of which the qubes-qrexec-agent.service takes 
> > 2,8s to start:
> >     qubes-qrexec-agent.service +20ms
> >     └─systemd-user-sessions.service @2.855s +18ms
> >       └─network.target @2.852s
> >         └─networking.service @2.750s +101ms
> >           └─network-pre.target @2.732s
> >             └─qubes-iptables.service @2.416s +315ms
> >               └─qubes-antispoof.service @2.210s +205ms
> >                 └─basic.target @2.206s
> >                   └─sockets.target @2.206s
> >                     └─qubes-updates-proxy-forwarder.socket @2.206s
> >                       └─sysinit.target @2.187s
> >                         └─systemd-binfmt.service @1.860s +327ms
> >                           └─proc-sys-fs-binfmt_misc.mount @2.114s +69ms
> >                             └─systemd-journald.socket @1.015s
> >                               └─-.mount @984ms
> >                                 └─-.slice @985ms
> > 
> > So improving the speed at which any of these services in the 
> > qubes-qrexec-agent.service critical chain start or possibly getting rid of 
> > dependencies entirely should improve the overall Qubes OS performance.
> > For example these numbers looked smaller in 4.1 on the same machine and a 
> > comparable VM [6].
> > 
> > [6] 
> > https://github.com/3hhh/qubes-performance/blob/master/samples/4.1/t530_debian-11_01.txt#L32-L40
> 
> Ouch.  500sms to set up networking is way too slow, and it looks like
> setting up the root filesystem is also slow.  dev-mapper-dmroot.device
> takes 1.310s to start up,

Where did you get that from? I don't see dev-mapper-dmroot.device
mentioned in any of the above...

Anyway, even if that would be there, it would be interesting to learn
what that actually mean. If dom0-provided kernel is used, the initramfs
is _not_ using systemd, and so there is no time measurements of how long
it takes to actually construct that device (which, in any currently
supported Qubes version is simply a symlink to /dev/xvda3, not real
dm device).

> which is nearly half of the 2.170s spent in
> userspace on the VM I used to write this message.  I suspect this is
> largely a problem with the Xen toolstack, which is not optimized, to
> put it mildly.  Replacing it with an optimized toolstack like the one
> Edera uses would make things much, much faster.

I have no idea how you got to the Xen toolstack here. The above is a
from from within a VM, after the toolstack did all its job. It isn't
even installed in the VM...

> > > And also, now it can do over 50 calls per second, I'd say it's way more 
> > > than
> > > enough for its intended use.
> 
> _Not_ fast enough for an internet-facing qrexec-call-per-request
> service, though, unless one checks authentication before the call to
> revent denial of service attacks.

As I said, "for its intended use". Qubes OS is not a server operating
system.

- -- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhrpukzGPukRmQqkK24/THMrX1ywFAmepUUUACgkQ24/THMrX
1yxcrQf/ZHU8HEo0CBKx2WjOYrYLik0YxzOtiT8Xoco/Ef+rzNEqP3xrx4N2wpm3
AOAeqq3d58ZVZgyJizVZ5tJMCVf2pABVc9wW0MUsWkVPhWjj9GQUT9YhVGoFsv34
etGXJYqFN8/TpY2a5Xo8jY+ERt1ss1uNabO/xv5QPCAUZ3Ei1w08NZtQ8/CbcJD1
YTpCEFbrqRBMSqJ95+zyBDq8i/SyQI4T2bmMWleqJnaZt+f11NDt9iZeA+PKXBIH
ENFuBNsUFhSSalOFmv0BcPQ6F0DTE5k0qv8zyd1agl0ailHS8pYaTlToaLBcXyST
rpBDomAVzAkujQ4Xgwypv2Jvo5srLg==
=AIm8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"qubes-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to qubes-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/Z6lRRR1nRg3evGRm%40mail-itl.

Reply via email to