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  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]
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 11:38:05 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] vsock/virtio: increase RX buffer size to 64 KiB


On 2019/5/14 上午1:51, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 06:01:52PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/5/10 下午8:58, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> In order to increase host -> guest throughput with large packets,
>>> we can use 64 KiB RX buffers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>>> index 84b72026d327..5a9d25be72df 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>>> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
>>>    #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_MIN_BUF_SIZE	128
>>>    #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE		(1024 * 256)
>>>    #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_MAX_BUF_SIZE	(1024 * 256)
>>> -#define VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE	(1024 * 4)
>>> +#define VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE	(1024 * 64)
>>>    #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_BUF_SIZE		0xFFFFFFFFUL
>>>    #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE		(1024 * 64)
>>
>> We probably don't want such high order allocation. It's better to switch to
>> use order 0 pages in this case. See add_recvbuf_big() for virtio-net. If we
>> get datapath unified, we will get more stuffs set.
> IIUC, you are suggesting to allocate only pages and put them in a
> scatterlist, then add them to the virtqueue.
>
> Is it correct?


Yes since you are using:

                 pkt->buf = kmalloc(buf_len, GFP_KERNEL);
                 if (!pkt->buf) {
                         virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
                         break;
                 }

This is likely to fail when the memory is fragmented which is kind of 
fragile.


>
> The issue that I have here, is that the virtio-vsock guest driver, see
> virtio_vsock_rx_fill(), allocates a struct virtio_vsock_pkt that
> contains the room for the header, then allocates the buffer for the payload.
> At this point it fills the scatterlist with the &virtio_vsock_pkt.hdr and the
> buffer for the payload.


This part should be fine since what is needed is just adding more pages 
to sg[] and call virtuqeueu_add_sg().


>
> Changing this will require several modifications, and if we get datapath
> unified, I'm not sure it's worth it.
> Of course, if we leave the datapaths separated, I'd like to do that later.
>
> What do you think?


For the driver it self, it should not be hard. But I think you mean the 
issue of e.g virtio_vsock_pkt itself which doesn't support sg. For short 
time, maybe we can use kvec instead.

Thanks


>
> Thanks,
> Stefano

Powered by blists - more mailing lists