D-Bus Implementation Aiming For The Linux Kernel

[Ericg]

Why? dbus daemon works. This will only make dbus little faster.

Theoretically twice as fast since it would cut the amount of mem-copy's in half and a copy is about the most expensive thing you can do in software...

[LightBit]

Theoretically twice as fast since it would cut the amount of mem-copy's in half and a copy is about the most expensive thing you can do in software...

"Theoretically", ok lets say a lot faster, but I don't think dbus is too slow now.

[Akka]

I thought it was related to the sandboxing stuff phoronix wrote about some days ago?


Besides that is systemd qualified to be "Minimal dependencies and footprint (does not require POSIX shell or D-Bus)" in the openrc article on Wikipedia now

[Ericg]

"Theoretically", ok lets say a lot faster, but I don't think dbus is too slow now.

No but its also the issue of finally getting Kernel-IPC "right." If we had gotten IPC right the first time we wouldn't have required AF_BUS or Dbus, since we DID come up with those 2 followups there's obviously something wrong with whatever the current implementation is. Going with dbus has the added bonus of speeding up any dbus-enabled program which is.... all of Gnome, KDE, XCFE, any program designed FOR those DE's...do you see a pattern forming? Pretty sure Greg has a phoronix account, I'd love for him to post the exact downsides of the current IPC mechanism.

[DeepDayze]

"Theoretically", ok lets say a lot faster, but I don't think dbus is too slow now.

I'm sure that d-bus will be optimized even better so that it can work in a kernel context..this will be interesting to see how this change to a kernel d-bus will impact the performance of the kernel

[libv]

We need to merge Gnome, systemd, ... into kernel and make Linux even more bloated.

Aw! I just wanted to post that! Stop ruining all our trolling fun!

[pingufunkybeat]

Aw! I just wanted to post that! Stop ruining all our trolling fun!

They are doing it backwards. They should be merging the kernel and D-Bus into SystemD. Then rejecting Linus' patched :P

[liam]

No but its also the issue of finally getting Kernel-IPC "right." If we had gotten IPC right the first time we wouldn't have required AF_BUS or Dbus, since we DID come up with those 2 followups there's obviously something wrong with whatever the current implementation is. Going with dbus has the added bonus of speeding up any dbus-enabled program which is.... all of Gnome, KDE, XCFE, any program designed FOR those DE's...do you see a pattern forming? Pretty sure Greg has a phoronix account, I'd love for him to post the exact downsides of the current IPC mechanism.

I'm sure I'm missing something but since dbus, I believe, supports fd passing, where is the memcpy occuring?

[Ericg]

I'm sure I'm missing something but since dbus, I believe, supports fd passing, where is the memcpy occuring?

Ask Greg next time he pops on the forums or head to his G+ page, he's the one who brought it up.

[Delgarde]

Could this replace Binder (on Android)...?

According to Greg's comments on G+, it's his expectation that Binder could be re-implemented on top of this.

People are getting hung up on the idea that they're moving the entire dbus daemon into the kernel, but that doesn't appear accurate. Rather, they're designing a new IPC mechanism in the kernel that dbus and Binder could be built on. There's no detail available yet, but I assume the kernel will provide a framework for delivery of generic messages, while the existing userspace code will remain responsible for the API and the structure of those messages.