Message-ID: <a9ee9ef5-e707-65ff-3128-41d09fbe8655@sberdevices.ru>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 16:11:59 +0300
From:   Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
CC:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
        <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel@...rdevices.ru>, <oxffffaa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/15] vsock: MSG_ZEROCOPY flag support



On 03.05.2023 15:52, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Hi Arseniy,
> Sorry for the delay, but I have been very busy.

Hello, no problem!

> 
> I can't apply this series on master or net-next, can you share with me
> the base commit?

Here is my base:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=b103bab0944be030954e5de23851b37980218f54

> 
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 10:26:28PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>                           DESCRIPTION
>>
>> this is MSG_ZEROCOPY feature support for virtio/vsock. I tried to follow
>> current implementation for TCP as much as possible:
>>
>> 1) Sender must enable SO_ZEROCOPY flag to use this feature. Without this
>>   flag, data will be sent in "classic" copy manner and MSG_ZEROCOPY
>>   flag will be ignored (e.g. without completion).
>>
>> 2) Kernel uses completions from socket's error queue. Single completion
>>   for single tx syscall (or it can merge several completions to single
>>   one). I used already implemented logic for MSG_ZEROCOPY support:
>>   'msg_zerocopy_realloc()' etc.
>>
>> Difference with copy way is not significant. During packet allocation,
>> non-linear skb is created, then I call 'pin_user_pages()' for each page
>> from user's iov iterator and add each returned page to the skb as fragment.
>> There are also some updates for vhost and guest parts of transport - in
>> both cases i've added handling of non-linear skb for virtio part. vhost
>> copies data from such skb to the guest's rx virtio buffers. In the guest,
>> virtio transport fills tx virtio queue with pages from skb.
>>
>> This version has several limits/problems:
>>
>> 1) As this feature totally depends on transport, there is no way (or it
>>   is difficult) to check whether transport is able to handle it or not
>>   during SO_ZEROCOPY setting. Seems I need to call AF_VSOCK specific
>>   setsockopt callback from setsockopt callback for SOL_SOCKET, but this
>>   leads to lock problem, because both AF_VSOCK and SOL_SOCKET callback
>>   are not considered to be called from each other. So in current version
>>   SO_ZEROCOPY is set successfully to any type (e.g. transport) of
>>   AF_VSOCK socket, but if transport does not support MSG_ZEROCOPY,
>>   tx routine will fail with EOPNOTSUPP.
> 
> Do you plan to fix this in the next versions?
> 
> If it is too complicated, I think we can have this limitation until we
> find a good solution.
> 

I'll try to fix it again, but just didn't pay attention on it in v2.

>>
>> 2) When MSG_ZEROCOPY is used, for each tx system call we need to enqueue
>>   one completion. In each completion there is flag which shows how tx
>>   was performed: zerocopy or copy. This leads that whole message must
>>   be send in zerocopy or copy way - we can't send part of message with
>>   copying and rest of message with zerocopy mode (or vice versa). Now,
>>   we need to account vsock credit logic, e.g. we can't send whole data
>>   once - only allowed number of bytes could sent at any moment. In case
>>   of copying way there is no problem as in worst case we can send single
>>   bytes, but zerocopy is more complex because smallest transmission
>>   unit is single page. So if there is not enough space at peer's side
>>   to send integer number of pages (at least one) - we will wait, thus
>>   stalling tx side. To overcome this problem i've added simple rule -
>>   zerocopy is possible only when there is enough space at another side
>>   for whole message (to check, that current 'msghdr' was already used
>>   in previous tx iterations i use 'iov_offset' field of it's iov iter).
> 
> So, IIUC if MSG_ZEROCOPY is set, but there isn't enough space in the
> destination we temporarily disable zerocopy, also if MSG_ZEROCOPY is set.
> Right?

Exactly, user still needs to get completion (because SO_ZEROCOPY is enabled and
MSG_ZEROCOPY flag as used). But completion structure contains information that
there was copying instead of zerocopying.

> 
> If it is the case it seems reasonable to me.
> 
>>
>> 3) loopback transport is not supported, because it requires to implement
>>   non-linear skb handling in dequeue logic (as we "send" fragged skb
>>   and "receive" it from the same queue). I'm going to implement it in
>>   next versions.
>>
>>   ^^^ fixed in v2
>>
>> 4) Current implementation sets max length of packet to 64KB. IIUC this
>>   is due to 'kmalloc()' allocated data buffers. I think, in case of
>>   MSG_ZEROCOPY this value could be increased, because 'kmalloc()' is
>>   not touched for data - user space pages are used as buffers. Also
>>   this limit trims every message which is > 64KB, thus such messages
>>   will be send in copy mode due to 'iov_offset' check in 2).
>>
>>   ^^^ fixed in v2
>>
>>                         PATCHSET STRUCTURE
>>
>> Patchset has the following structure:
>> 1) Handle non-linear skbuff on receive in virtio/vhost.
>> 2) Handle non-linear skbuff on send in virtio/vhost.
>> 3) Updates for AF_VSOCK.
>> 4) Enable MSG_ZEROCOPY support on transports.
>> 5) Tests/tools/docs updates.
>>
>>                            PERFORMANCE
>>
>> Performance: it is a little bit tricky to compare performance between
>> copy and zerocopy transmissions. In zerocopy way we need to wait when
>> user buffers will be released by kernel, so it something like synchronous
>> path (wait until device driver will process it), while in copy way we
>> can feed data to kernel as many as we want, don't care about device
>> driver. So I compared only time which we spend in the 'send()' syscall.
>> Then if this value will be combined with total number of transmitted
>> bytes, we can get Gbit/s parameter. Also to avoid tx stalls due to not
>> enough credit, receiver allocates same amount of space as sender needs.
>>
>> Sender:
>> ./vsock_perf --sender <CID> --buf-size <buf size> --bytes 256M [--zc]
>>
>> Receiver:
>> ./vsock_perf --vsk-size 256M
>>
>> G2H transmission (values are Gbit/s):
>>
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |          |         |          |
>> | buf size |   copy  | zerocopy |
>> |          |         |          |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   4KB    |    3    |    10    |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   32KB   |    9    |    45    |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   256KB  |    24   |    195   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |    1M    |    27   |    270   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |    8M    |    22   |    277   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>>
>> H2G:
>>
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |          |         |          |
>> | buf size |   copy  | zerocopy |
>> |          |         |          |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   4KB    |    17   |    11    |
> 
> Do you know why in this case zerocopy is slower in this case?
> Could be the cost of pin/unpin pages?
May be, i think i need to analyze such enormous difference more. Also about
pin/unpin: i found that there is already implemented function to fill non-linear
skb with pages from user's iov: __zerocopy_sg_from_iter() in net/core/datagram.c.
It uses 'get_user_pages()' instead of 'pin_user_pages()'. May be in my case it
is also valid to user 'get_XXX()' instead of 'pin_XXX()', because it is used by
TCP MSG_ZEROCOPY and iouring MSG_ZEROCOPY.

> 
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   32KB   |    30   |    66    |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   256KB  |    38   |    179   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |    1M    |    38   |    234   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |    8M    |    28   |    279   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>>
>> Loopback:
>>
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |          |         |          |
>> | buf size |   copy  | zerocopy |
>> |          |         |          |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   4KB    |    8    |    7     |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   32KB   |    34   |    42    |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |   256KB  |    43   |    83    |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |    1M    |    40   |    109   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>> |    8M    |    40   |    171   |
>> *-------------------------------*
>>
>> I suppose that huge difference above between both modes has two reasons:
>> 1) We don't need to copy data.
>> 2) We don't need to allocate buffer for data, only for header.
>>
>> Zerocopy is faster than classic copy mode, but of course it requires
>> specific architecture of application due to user pages pinning, buffer
>> size and alignment.
>>
>> If host fails to send data with "Cannot allocate memory", check value
>> /proc/sys/net/core/optmem_max - it is accounted during completion skb
>> allocation.
> 
> What the user needs to do? Increase it?
> 
Yes, i'll update it.
>>
>>                            TESTING
>>
>> This patchset includes set of tests for MSG_ZEROCOPY feature. I tried to
>> cover new code as much as possible so there are different cases for
>> MSG_ZEROCOPY transmissions: with disabled SO_ZEROCOPY and several io
>> vector types (different sizes, alignments, with unmapped pages). I also
>> run tests with loopback transport and running vsockmon.
> 
> Thanks for the test again :-)
> 
> This cover letter is very good, with a lot of details, but please add
> more details in each single patch, explaining the reason of the changes,
> otherwise it is very difficult to review, because it is a very big
> change.
> 
> I'll do a per-patch review in the next days.

Sure, thanks! In v3 i'm also working on io_uring test, because this thing also
supports MSG_ZEROCOPY, so we can do virtio/vsock + MSG_ZEROCOPY + io_uring.

Thanks, Arseniy

> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists