[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27cd8ac6-e892-cfaa-cd39-74f39b452681@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:10:03 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>, stefanha@...hat.com,
stefanha@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Discuss about an new idea "Vsock over Virtio-net"
On 2018/11/30 下午8:55, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2018/11/30 下午8:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> If you want to compare it with
>>>> something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference
>>>> between
>>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss
>>>> environment.
>>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always
>>>> free to
>>>> discard any unacked data.
>>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent
>>> to device
>>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
>> on top of virtio-net?
>>
>>
>
> No, my question is why not do vsock through virtio-net.
>
> Thanks
>
Just to clarify, it's not about vosck over ethernet, and it's not about
inventing new features or APIs. It's probably something like:
- Let virtio-net driver probe vsock device and do vosck specific things
if needed to share as much codes.
- A new kind of sockfd (which is vsock based) for vhost-net for it to do
vsock specific things (hopefully it can be transparent).
The change should be totally transparent to userspace applications.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists