linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and host kernel

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1285772186.31343.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:56:26 -0700
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and host
 kernel

On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 10:28 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > 1. Adding completion field in struct virtqueue;
> > > 2. when it is a zero copy packet, put vhost thread wait for
> completion
> > > to update vhost_add_used_and_signal;
> > > 3. passing vq from vhost to macvtap as skb destruct_arg;
> > > 4. when skb is freed for the last reference, signal vq completion
> > > The test results show same performance as the original patch. How
> do you
> > > think? If it sounds good to you. I will resubmit this reversion
> patch.
> > > The patch still keeps as simple as it was before. :)
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Shirley
> > 
> > If you look at dev_hard_start_xmit you will see a call
> > to skb_orphan_try which often calls the skb destructor.
> > So I suspect this is almost equivalent to your original patch,
> > and has the same correctness issue.
> 
> So you could try doing skb_tx(skb)->prevent_sk_orphan = 1
> just to see what will happen. Might be interesting - just
> make sure the device doesn't orphan the skb first thing.
> I suspect lack of parallelism will result in bad throughput
> esp for small messages.
> 
> Note this still won't make it correct (this has module unloading
> issue, and devices might still orphan skb, clone it, or hang on to
> paged data in some other way) but at least closer. 

For message size smaller than 128, it still does copy. I tested some
small message size, I didn't see any regression. I will run more test to
focus on small message size between 128 - 4K.

I don't need prevent_sk_orphan since in skb_release_data for last
reference, I just need the ZEROCOPY flag from that sock to signal a
completion.

Thanks
Shirley

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/