| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d5de8b79-f903-d65f-a5bc-e591578144e7@sberdevices.ru>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:05:12 +0000
From: Krasnov Arseniy <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Krasnov Arseniy <oxffffaa@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel <kernel@...rdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 12/12] test/vsock: MSG_ZEROCOPY support for
vsock_perf
On 16.02.2023 18:29, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 07:06:32AM +0000, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>> To use this option pass '--zc' parameter:
>
> --zerocopy or --zero-copy maybe better follow what we did with the other parameters :-)
>
>>
>> ./vsock_perf --zc --sender <cid> --port <port> --bytes <bytes to send>
>>
>> With this option MSG_ZEROCOPY flag will be passed to the 'send()' call.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_perf.c | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_perf.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_perf.c
>> index a72520338f84..1d435be9b48e 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_perf.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_perf.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@
>> #include <poll.h>
>> #include <sys/socket.h>
>> #include <linux/vm_sockets.h>
>> +#include <sys/mman.h>
>> +#include <linux/errqueue.h>
>>
>> #define DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE_BYTES (128 * 1024)
>> #define DEFAULT_TO_SEND_BYTES (64 * 1024)
>> @@ -28,9 +30,14 @@
>> #define BYTES_PER_GB (1024 * 1024 * 1024ULL)
>> #define NSEC_PER_SEC (1000000000ULL)
>>
>> +#ifndef SOL_VSOCK
>> +#define SOL_VSOCK 287
>> +#endif
>
> I thought we use the current kernel headers when we compile the tests,
> do we need to fix something in the makefile?
Not sure, of course we are using uapi. But i see, that defines like SOL_XXX is not
defined in uapi headers. For example SOL_IP is defined in include/linux/socket.h,
but userspace app uses SOL_IP from in.h (at least on my machine). E.g. SOL_XXX is
not exported to user.
>
>> +
>> static unsigned int port = DEFAULT_PORT;
>> static unsigned long buf_size_bytes = DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE_BYTES;
>> static unsigned long vsock_buf_bytes = DEFAULT_VSOCK_BUF_BYTES;
>> +static bool zerocopy;
>>
>> static void error(const char *s)
>> {
>> @@ -247,15 +254,74 @@ static void run_receiver(unsigned long rcvlowat_bytes)
>> close(fd);
>> }
>>
>> +static void recv_completion(int fd)
>> +{
>> + struct sock_extended_err *serr;
>> + char cmsg_data[128];
>> + struct cmsghdr *cm;
>> + struct msghdr msg;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + msg.msg_control = cmsg_data;
>> + msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(cmsg_data);
>> +
>> + ret = recvmsg(fd, &msg, MSG_ERRQUEUE);
>> + if (ret == -1)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + cm = CMSG_FIRSTHDR(&msg);
>> + if (!cm) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "cmsg: no cmsg\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (cm->cmsg_level != SOL_VSOCK) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "cmsg: unexpected 'cmsg_level'\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (cm->cmsg_type) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "cmsg: unexpected 'cmsg_type'\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + serr = (void *)CMSG_DATA(cm);
>> + if (serr->ee_origin != SO_EE_ORIGIN_ZEROCOPY) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "serr: wrong origin\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (serr->ee_errno) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "serr: wrong error code\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (zerocopy && (serr->ee_code & SO_EE_CODE_ZEROCOPY_COPIED))
>> + fprintf(stderr, "warning: copy instead of zerocopy\n");
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void enable_so_zerocopy(int fd)
>> +{
>> + int val = 1;
>> +
>> + if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ZEROCOPY, &val, sizeof(val)))
>> + error("setsockopt(SO_ZEROCOPY)");
>> +}
>> +
>> static void run_sender(int peer_cid, unsigned long to_send_bytes)
>> {
>> time_t tx_begin_ns;
>> time_t tx_total_ns;
>> size_t total_send;
>> + time_t time_in_send;
>> void *data;
>> int fd;
>>
>> - printf("Run as sender\n");
>> + if (zerocopy)
>> + printf("Run as sender MSG_ZEROCOPY\n");
>> + else
>> + printf("Run as sender\n");
>> +
>> printf("Connect to %i:%u\n", peer_cid, port);
>> printf("Send %lu bytes\n", to_send_bytes);
>> printf("TX buffer %lu bytes\n", buf_size_bytes);
>> @@ -265,25 +331,58 @@ static void run_sender(int peer_cid, unsigned long to_send_bytes)
>> if (fd < 0)
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>
>> - data = malloc(buf_size_bytes);
>> + if (zerocopy) {
>> + enable_so_zerocopy(fd);
>>
>> - if (!data) {
>> - fprintf(stderr, "'malloc()' failed\n");
>> - exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + data = mmap(NULL, buf_size_bytes, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>> + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>> + if (data == MAP_FAILED) {
>> + perror("mmap");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + data = malloc(buf_size_bytes);
>> +
>> + if (!data) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "'malloc()' failed\n");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> }
>
> Eventually to simplify the code I think we can use the mmaped buffer in
> both cases.
>
>>
>> memset(data, 0, buf_size_bytes);
>> total_send = 0;
>> + time_in_send = 0;
>> tx_begin_ns = current_nsec();
>>
>> while (total_send < to_send_bytes) {
>> ssize_t sent;
>> + size_t rest_bytes;
>> + time_t before;
>> +
>> + rest_bytes = to_send_bytes - total_send;
>>
>> - sent = write(fd, data, buf_size_bytes);
>> + before = current_nsec();
>> + sent = send(fd, data, (rest_bytes > buf_size_bytes) ?
>> + buf_size_bytes : rest_bytes,
>> + zerocopy ? MSG_ZEROCOPY : 0);
>> + time_in_send += (current_nsec() - before);
>>
>> if (sent <= 0)
>> error("write");
>>
>> + if (zerocopy) {
>> + struct pollfd fds = { 0 };
>> +
>> + fds.fd = fd;
>
> Which event are we waiting for here?
>
>> +
>> + if (poll(&fds, 1, -1) < 0) {
>> + perror("poll");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>
> We need this because we use only one buffer, but if we use more than
> one, we could take full advantage of zerocopy, right?
>
> Otherwise, I don't think it's a fair comparison with non-zerocopy.
Yes or course, in next versions i'll update this test for using
more long iovs.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
>> +
>> + recv_completion(fd);
>> + }
>> +
>> total_send += sent;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -294,9 +393,14 @@ static void run_sender(int peer_cid, unsigned long to_send_bytes)
>> get_gbps(total_send * 8, tx_total_ns));
>> printf("total time in 'write()': %f sec\n",
>> (float)tx_total_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC);
>> + printf("time in send %f\n", (float)time_in_send / NSEC_PER_SEC);
>>
>> close(fd);
>> - free(data);
>> +
>> + if (zerocopy)
>> + munmap(data, buf_size_bytes);
>> + else
>> + free(data);
>> }
>>
>> static const char optstring[] = "";
>> @@ -336,6 +440,11 @@ static const struct option longopts[] = {
>> .has_arg = required_argument,
>> .val = 'R',
>> },
>> + {
>> + .name = "zc",
>> + .has_arg = no_argument,
>> + .val = 'Z',
>> + },
>> {},
>> };
>>
>> @@ -351,6 +460,7 @@ static void usage(void)
>> " --help This message\n"
>> " --sender <cid> Sender mode (receiver default)\n"
>> " <cid> of the receiver to connect to\n"
>> + " --zc Enable zerocopy\n"
>> " --port <port> Port (default %d)\n"
>> " --bytes <bytes>KMG Bytes to send (default %d)\n"
>> " --buf-size <bytes>KMG Data buffer size (default %d). In sender mode\n"
>> @@ -413,6 +523,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> case 'H': /* Help. */
>> usage();
>> break;
>> + case 'Z': /* Zerocopy. */
>> + zerocopy = true;
>> + break;
>> default:
>> usage();
>> }
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists