[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GSOC Project discussion : Async sftp implementation

On 3/8/23 05:33, Eshan Kelkar wrote:

Hi Jakub,

    The concept of synchronous process (or polling process) is that it is
    based on calling poll on userspace, sending the requests and waiting for
    responses. Both of these, involve writing to sockets, reading from
    sockets and polling of the socket, which needs to switch context to the
    kernel space to handle these operations, switching back once the
    operation is ready and then a lot of waiting, which will rapidly
    increase in case the remote host is far away. This is not very suitable
    if we are striving for high throughput and speeds for the transfers such
    as in SFTP.


Ok, so in case of sftp_write we send the write request
and the data to be written via a packet and then on the
server side the data is written to the file and then server
sends a response explaining what actually happened with the
write, sftp_write waits for this response and after getting response
returns control to the library user.

We are calling the whole function sftp_write synchronous
because it sends a request, waits for its response too and then
after getting a response returns the control (Please comment
whether this interpretation of mine is correct or not)


Correct.


Now if the above interpretation is correct, simply breaking the
sftp_write synchronous function into two functions, one to register
the request and one to check and wait for the response should make
the process asynchronous. The first function won't wait for
the response from the server and will simply return the request id to
the user (after sending data to the server) and the second function
whenever called by the user will check for the response corresponding
to that request_id. This whole model is similar to what libssh has
currently used for the async read.
sftp_async_write_register_request(file_handle,
buffer_to_write_from ,  count_of_bytes_to_write) 
{
Step 1: Get an id for this write request
Step 2 : Pack a ssh_buffer with the request id,
file_handle, file_offset and the bytes to write.
Step 3 : Send a packet using sftp_packet_write
for this write request along with the ssh_buffer
Step 4: Free the ssh_buffer as its data has been
sent and is no longer needed
Step 5 : Return the id for this request to the user
}

sftp_async_write_get_response(file_handle, request_id)
{
The waiting for the response using that loop
involving calling sftp_read_and_dispatch and
sftp_dequeue comes here.

Processing the response after its received
}

 From the previous conversation I think we don't want the
writing to the socket send buffer to be asynchronous rather
we want the acts of sending the request and receiving the
response (after the server processes the request) be
unsynchronized and this division will achieve that.


Correct. The working on non-blocking sockets would be a plus though.


Please clarify whether this approach is correct or not and suggest
improvements that can be made to specific parts if any.


Correct. This is the basic idea that we strive to implement in this project.
While it sounds easy to put together, there should be consideration given to the performance. Right now, there are three steps needed to send some data: * (usually) read the data from file, which is system call causing the context switch and copying the data to the application buffer 
 * the sftp_write copies the buffer to internal libssh buffer
* this buffer is encrypted and written to the session->out_buffer in channel_write_common() 
 * the out_buffer is written to the socket
Some of the data copying from buffer to buffer might be unnecessary and might be eliminated. I think something similar was already done for the reading side of the sftp (check the git history).
As you already studied some information about the io_uring, it might be worth trying to compare what would be the performance benefits of using this, even if it would not have to end up in the final result.
We already have some benchmarks so implementing and running a benchmark and tests for this would be certainly part of the project.
The description of the project in [1] is written in the more high-level way, which would basically mean creating some "SFTP IO structure" with information about chunksize, max number of on-the-fly transfers, local FD and remove SFTP handle and this would handle calling the low-level functions we discuss above, transparently. Just having the file descriptor inside of libssh might already avoid one copy from the application buffer to libssh.
Another step might be looking into existing applications that use SFTP for file transfers (curl, kde, ...) to see how they can benefit from the new API to improve their file transfer performance. 

[1] https://www.libssh.org/development/google-summer-of-code/

Hope it helps and I did not overwhelm you with the information :)

Best regards,
Jakub



Thanks,
Eshan
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:52 PM Jakub Jelen <jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: 

    On 3/7/23 10:58, Eshan Kelkar wrote:
     > Hello Jakub,
     >
     >     I would suggest starting from the benchmark code
     >     we have in tests/benchmarks/, which has an example of async
    donwload
     >     (but there is only the download part -- the upload part does not
     >     exist now).
     >
     >
     > As per your suggestion, I have read that example and have gone
    through
     > the source code to understand how the current async read is working
     > using sftp_async_read_begin and sftp_async_read. Please correct
    me if I
     > am wrong but the way I understand how the api currently works is
    like this.
     >
     > First let me go through the synchronous read function which will
    help us
     > to better understand how the async read api works :
     >
     > [sync_read refers to the sftp_read function in normal(blocking
    mode) in
     > src/sftp.c]
     > sync_read(file_handle, buffer_to_read_into, count)
     > {
     > NOTE : In the text sftp session refers to the session
    corresponding to the
     > file_handle received in the  parameter
     >
     > //Phase-1 (Registering the request)
     > //----------------------------------------------
     > Step- 1 : Get an id for this read request with respect to the sftp
     > session corresponding
     > to the file whose handle is received in the parameter.
     > Step-2 : Pack  a ssh_buffer with the id, file handle, offset and
    count
     > of bytes to read.
     > Step-3 : Write a packet using sftp_packet_write to send a read
    request
     > along with
     > this ssh_buffer.
     > Step-4 : After a successful Step-3 free this ssh_buffer as its no
    longer
     > needed and
     > its data has been sent along with the packet
     >
     > //Phase-2(Waiting for the request to get processed)
     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
     > Now the packet gets sent along with the request id. The server
    processes it
     > and sends a packet back again containing the same id as in the
    request.
     > The id is kept the same to match the request and response. The
    incoming
     > packets
     > from the server are read using sftp_packet_read_and_dispatch
    which reads
     > a packet
     > and adds it to a queue of messages from the server corresponding
    to this
     > sftp session.
     >
     > The waiting is done like this
     > msg=NULL;
     > while(msg==NULL)
     > {
     > read_and_dispatch - read a response packet and add message to queue
     > sftp_dequeue - try to dequeue a message from the queue
    corresponding to
     > the id we got in Phase-1 and assign whatever it returns to the msg
     > variable. In case
     > the queue doesn't contain any message with the id of Phase-1 the
    dequeue
     > function
     > returns NULL which gets assigned to msg and the loop runs again.
     > }//while(msg==NULL) ends
     >
     > After we receive the message corresponding to the send request.
     > If the message contains some data(i.e msg->packet_type is
    SSH_FXP_DATA),
     > write that data in the location whose address has been received
    in the
     > parameter.
     >
     > So the loop of Phase-2 is responsible for the waiting, which is
     > essentially reading the
     > response packet adding the message received in it to a
     > queue(corresponding to a sftp session)
     > and then the loop checks whether the response received was
    corresponding
     > to the request sent
     > (matching of request and response based on the id of Phase-1) and
    if not
     > then the loop runs again.
     > }//sync_read ends

    This sounds correct.

     > This explanation of synchronous read is important to understand
    how the
     > asynchronous read currently
     > works, asynchronous read api is divided into two functions
     > sftp_async_read_begin and sftp_async_read
     >
     > sftp_async_read_begin(file_handle, count)
     > {
     > Phase-1's code(Registering request by sending a packet) of sync_read
     > comes here
     > and return the id for the request to the user which he'll pass while
     > calling sftp_async_read
     > }
     >
     > sftp_async_read(file_handle, where_to_store, bytes_to_read,
    request_id)
     > {
     > Phase-2's code to wait for the response message corresponding to the
     > request with that
     > request_id as received in parameter and then writing the data
    which came
     > in that message
     > comes here
     > }

    Correct.

     > Now one problem I notice in this approach is that Phase-1's code for
     > sending/registering
     > a request involves the use of sftp_packet_write and
    sftp_packet_write
     > internally
     > uses ssh_channel_write (defined in src/channels.c) and this
     > ssh_channel_write is synchronous
     > write (it may block if unable to write to the channel).

    The fact the code is blocking does not imply it is synchronous and vice
    versa. These are two separate things.

    Blocking is "just" a "property" of the socket we are using.
    Moreover, it
    looks like the SFTP does not work in non-blocking mode according to
    this
    issue (but as you can see in the functions sftp_async_read and
    sftp_read, there are some stubs for working with the non-blocking mode):

    https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/58
    <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/58>

    The concept of synchronous process (or polling process) is that it is
    based on calling poll on userspace, sending the requests and waiting
    for
    responses. Both of these, involve writing to sockets, reading from
    sockets and polling of the socket, which needs to switch context to the
    kernel space to handle these operations, switching back once the
    operation is ready and then a lot of waiting, which will rapidly
    increase in case the remote host is far away. This is not very suitable
    if we are striving for high throughput and speeds for the transfers
    such
    as in SFTP.

    If you build the benchmarks under the libssh, you can test the speeds
    yourself (against localhost it is not very informative as when you
    would
    try to transfer the data across the half of the country or Earth,
    but it
    should give you the idea)

    [jjelen@t490s obj (poll-block)]$ ./tests/benchmarks/benchmarks  -h
    localhost
    ping RTT : 0.065000 ms
    SSH request times : 0.134000 ms ; 0.094000 ms ; 0.063000 ms
    SSH RTT : 0.097000 ms. Theoretical max BW (win=128K) : 1.319588 Gbps
    parse error :
    localhost : benchmark_raw_download : 746.649597 Mbps
    localhost : benchmark_sync_sftp_upload : 9.228348 Mbps
    localhost : benchmark_sync_sftp_download : 94.978531 Mbps
    localhost : benchmark_async_sftp_download : 6.836124 Gbps


     > Hence according
     > to me sftp_async_read_begin
     > may also block if say the channel corresponding to that sftp
    session is
     > too much saturated/dirty
     > with pending writes.

    Correct. But given that for the download we write just the requests,
    this is very unlike case, but certainly worth investigating. This is
    much more likely to happen on the sending side (for example with the
    async upload).

     > So technically this operation is not an
     > asynchronous one, its synchronous in
     > the sense that the control will return after the packet for
    registering
     > the read request has been written
     > to the underlying send buffer (corresponding to the channel).
     >
     > So is this current state of async read acceptable ?

    Yes, but the blocking properties would be worth investigating and
    improve if time permits anyway.

     > One may argue that the chances of blocking in case of registering
    a read
     > request are less
     > because we're sending less info in the packet  : request id, from
    where
     > we have to read and from
     > what offset, but still a scope for blocking still exists and
    certainly
     > this kind of approach won't work for async write.
     > As in the write request we also send the data to write using
     > sftp_packet_write and in this case the chances of
     > blocking are significant if too much data is to be sent.

    Correct (as I mentioned above before finalizing reading your whole
    message).

     > Kindly comment on my interpretation of the code, and answer
    whether the
     > current state of async
     > read is as desired or not. If not, please give a rough overview
    of how
     > it should be and
     > what is expected out of the async libssh api.

    This async API exists only for the upload so the upload speeds
    (sftp_write) are several orders of magnitude slower. And we need to
    support this direction too, which is the main part of the project.

     > (For example - my interpretation of the async read is that user
    issues a
     > read
     > request using an api function call, the function returns and he
     > continues to do
     > what he wants to do while the the read request is handled by the
    api and
     > the
     > data received from the server is written to the buffer supplied
    by the
     > user. API has some
     > means to communicate[via callbacks or some data structure of
    which user
     > has access]
     > to the user about the state of the operation)

    I do not think we want an async in this extent that the user would be
    able to do anything and the stuff would just happen in the
    "background".
    The calling application still needs to drive the uploads/downloads,
    either via callbacks or be in control of how many "concurrent" request
    of writes are issued.

    Moving the whole logic to io_uring will certainly add some additional
    complexity and make it less compatible (as mentioned by others) so
    if we
    can do without that, it is probably my preference.

    Hope, it helps. Let me know if you will need some more clarifications.

    Regards,
    Jakub


     > Thanks,
     > Eshan Kelkar
     >
     >
     >
     >
     > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 5:30 PM Jakub Jelen <jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
     > <mailto:jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
     >
     >     On 3/3/23 06:36, Eshan Kelkar wrote:
     >      > Hi, I am Eshan Kelkar and would like to create the async
    sftp for
     >     libssh
     >      > as the GSOC project. I have gone through liburing to
    understand what
     >      > async i/o is and how it is implemented using io_uring. So
    in this
     >     async
     >      > sftp implementation I believe we can place calls to the
    liburing api
     >      > functions from inside of the async sftp api functions so
    that things
     >      > occur asynchronously.
     >      >
     >      > Another approach that comes to my mind is that on a call
    to async
     >     sftp
     >      > api function a seperate thread gets created which does the
     >     waiting and
     >      > all and on completion places a call to the callback function
     >     notifying
     >      > that the operation has occurred. The second approach is async
     >      > conceptually as the user of api can continue his job after the
     >     call as
     >      > the waiting occurs on the separate thread but this
    approach seems
     >     a bit
     >      > "naive" as for each api call a new thread gets created
    which is
     >     resource
     >      > expensive.
     >      >
     >      > Kindly comment on these two approaches and suggest any other
     >     approach
     >      > which you have in mind to implement the async sftp api, those
     >      > suggestions will help me prepare better before sending in the
     >     proposal.
     >
     >     Hello Eshan,
     >     first of all, sorry for late reply. I saw your message on
    IRC, but
     >     before I got back to reply, you were already away so thank
    you for
     >     patience to reach out to us on other channels.
     >
     >     The async SFTP implementation is one of our priorities and
    one of the
     >     more complicated tasks. I would suggest starting from the
    benchmark
     >     code
     >     we have in tests/benchmarks/, which has an example of async
    donwload
     >     (but there is only the download part -- the upload part does not
     >     exist now).
     >
     >     I do not think it is a good idea to spawn more threads as it
    would
     >     require a lot of synchronization. The example in the
    benchmarks can run
     >     several download requests from a single thread, which can
    help saturate
     >     the network connection without the need for threads.
     >
     >     I did not read much about io_uring yet, but it sounds like it
    solves
     >     the
     >     issues we have with speed of synchronous writes/reads caused
    by context
     >     switching so this would be our preference. There are already some
     >     hints/comments in the following issues, so if you will have
    some more
     >     questions, comments, feel free to ask here or in either of the
     >     following
     >     issues:
     >
     > https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/65
    <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/65>
     >     <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/65
    <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/65>>
     > https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/124
    <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/124>
     >     <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/124
    <https://gitlab.com/libssh/libssh-mirror/-/issues/124>>
     >
     >     Regards,
     >     --
     >     Jakub Jelen
     >     Crypto Team, Security Engineering
     >     Red Hat, Inc.
     >
-- Jakub Jelen 
    Crypto Team, Security Engineering
    Red Hat, Inc.



--
Jakub Jelen
Crypto Team, Security Engineering
Red Hat, Inc.
Follow-Ups:
Re: GSOC Project discussion : Async sftp implementationEshan Kelkar <eshankelkar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
GSOC Project discussion : Async sftp implementationEshan Kelkar <eshankelkar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Re: GSOC Project discussion : Async sftp implementationJakub Jelen <jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Re: GSOC Project discussion : Async sftp implementationJakub Jelen <jjelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Re: GSOC Project discussion : Async sftp implementationEshan Kelkar <eshankelkar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archive administrator: postmaster@lists.cynapses.org