netdev - Re: [RFC] Discuss about an new idea "Vsock over Virtio-net"

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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 23:08:16 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.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 Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:21:40AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
> On 2018/12/4 9:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:10:58AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
> >> On 2018/11/30 21:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:10:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> Which code is duplicated between virtio vsock and virtio net right now?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Michael,
> >>
> >> AFAIK, there is almost no duplicate code between virtio vsock and virtio net now.
> >>
> >> But, if virtio vsock wants to support mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue feature,
> >> it has some duplicate codes from virtio net. Based on it, we both think vsock
> >> may use virtio net as a transport channel, in this way, vsock can use some of
> >> virtio net great features.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Yiwen.
> > 
> > What I would do is just copy some code and show a performance
> > benefit. If that works out it will be clearer which code
> > should be shared.
> > 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I have already sent a series of patches (VSOCK: support mergeable rx buffer in vhost-vsock)
> a month ago, and the performance as follows:
> 
> I write a tool to test the vhost-vsock performance, mainly send big
> packet(64K) included guest->Host and Host->Guest. The result as
> follows:
> 
> Before performance:
>               Single socket            Multiple sockets(Max Bandwidth)
> Guest->Host   ~400MB/s                 ~480MB/s
> Host->Guest   ~1450MB/s                ~1600MB/s
> 
> After performance:
>               Single socket            Multiple sockets(Max Bandwidth)
> Guest->Host   ~1700MB/s                ~2900MB/s
> Host->Guest   ~1700MB/s                ~2900MB/s
> 
> >From the test results, the performance is improved obviously, and guest
> memory will not be wasted.

Oh I didn't see that one. Pls CC me in the future.

Looking at it I agree zero page allocation looks like an issue
but besides that, I think we can merge something similar
and look at refactoring and future extensions later.

However, any interface change (e.g. a new feature) must be CC'd to one of
virtio lists (subscriber-only).



> In addition, multiqueue feature I have not implemented it yet.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yiwen.
>