netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] VSOCK: support fill data to mergeable rx buffer in host

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]

Message-ID: <20181213154923.GN23318@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:49:23 +0000
From:   Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To:     jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] VSOCK: support fill data to mergeable rx buffer
 in host

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:08:04AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
> On 2018/12/12 23:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:29:31PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
> >> When vhost support VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_MRG_RXBUF feature,
> >> it will merge big packet into rx vq.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yiwen Jiang <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>
> > 
> > I feel this approach jumps into making interface changes for
> > optimizations too quickly. For example, what prevents us
> > from taking a big buffer, prepending each chunk
> > with the header and writing it out without
> > host/guest interface changes?
> > 
> > This should allow optimizations such as vhost_add_used_n
> > batching.
> > 
> > I realize a header in each packet does have a cost,
> > but it also has advantages such as improved robustness,
> > I'd like to see more of an apples to apples comparison
> > of the performance gain from skipping them.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I don't fully understand what you mean, do you want to
> see a performance comparison that before performance and
> only use batching?
> 
> In my opinion, guest don't fill big buffer in rx vq because
> the balance performance and guest memory pressure, add
> mergeable feature can improve big packets performance,
> as for small packets, I try to find out the reason, may be
> the fluctuation of test results, or in mergeable mode, when
> Host send a 4k packet to Guest, we should call vhost_get_vq_desc()
> twice in host(hdr + 4k data), and in guest we also should call
> virtqueue_get_buf() twice.

I like the idea of making optimizations in small steps and measuring the
effect of each step.  This way we'll know which aspect caused the
differences in benchmark results.

Stefan

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)