netdev - Re: copyless virtio net thoughts?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:55:40 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: copyless virtio net thoughts?

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> The guest's block layer is copyless.  The host block layer is -><- this  
>> far from being copyless -- all we need is preadv()/pwritev() or to  
>> replace our thread pool implementation in qemu with linux-aio.   
>> Everything else is copyless.
>>
>> Since we are actively working on this, expect this limitation to  
>> disappear soon.
>>     
>
> Great, when that happens I'll promise to revisit zero-copy transmit :)
>
>   

I was hoping to get some concurrency here, but okay.

>> I support this, but it should be in addition to copylessness, not on its  
>> own.
>>     
>
> I was talking about it in the context of zero-copy receive, where
> you mentioned that the virtio/kvm copy may not occur on the CPU of
> the guest's copy.
>
> My point is that using multiqueue you can avoid this change of CPU.
>
> But yeah I think zero-copy receive is much more useful than zero-
> copy transmit at the moment.  Although I'd prefer to wait for
> you guys to finish the block layer work before contemplating
> pushing the copy on receive into the guest :)
>
>   

We'll get the block layer done soon, so it won't be a barrier.

>> - many guests will not support multiqueue
>>     
>
> Well, these guests will suck both on baremetal and in virtualisation,
> big deal :) Multiqueue at 10GbE speeds and above is simply not an
> optional feature.
>   

Each guest may only use a part of the 10Gb/s bandwidth, if you have 10 
guests each using 1Gb/s, then we should be able to support this without 
multiqueue in the guests.


-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html