[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <u3azhe3tsae6c3h2hbhzypvcxbjsostqple3wkqtplvdhtadkf@5posaldst7ec>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:10:14 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] Add support for sockmap to vsock.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 06:06:10PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>Bobby Eshleman wrote:
>> We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS
>> requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the
>> performance of such a setup.
>>
>> Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by
>> 121% in basic testing.
>>
>> Tested as follows.
>>
>> Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock redirector -> host vsock
>> server
>> Threads: 1
>> Payload: 64k
>> No sockmap:
>> - 76.3 MB/s
>> - The guest vsock redirector was
>> "socat VSOCK-CONNECT:2:1234 UNIX-RECV:/path/to/sock"
>> Using sockmap (this patch):
>> - 168.8 MB/s (+121%)
>> - The guest redirector was a simple sockmap echo server,
>> redirecting unix ingress to vsock 2:1234 egress.
>> - Same sender and server programs
>>
>> *Note: these numbers are from RFC v1
>>
>> Only the virtio transport has been tested. The loopback transport was
>> used in writing bpf/selftests, but not thoroughly tested otherwise.
>>
>> This series requires the skb patch.
>
>Appears reasonable to me although I didn't review internals of all
>the af_vsock stuff. I see it got merged great.
Thanks for checking!
>
>One nit, I have a series coming shortly to pull the tests out of
>the sockmap_listen and into a sockmap_vsock because I don't think they
>belong in _listen but that is just a refactor.
>
LGTM!
Thanks,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists