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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:01:50 +0800
From:   jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.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 2018/12/4 12:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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).
> 
> 

Okay, previously I send Virtio-vsock patch only CC stefan and mailing lists
based on MAINTAINERS, because it only be related to Virtio-vsock.

Then, first I send v2 patch based on Jason's suggestions, and then let's
see how to combine with virtio-vsock and virtio-net. What do you think?

Thanks,
Yiwen.

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