[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6427838247d16_c503a2087e@john.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:06:10 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...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>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] Add support for sockmap to vsock.
Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS
> requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the
> performance of such a setup.
>
> Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by
> 121% in basic testing.
>
> Tested as follows.
>
> Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock redirector -> host vsock
> server
> Threads: 1
> Payload: 64k
> No sockmap:
> - 76.3 MB/s
> - The guest vsock redirector was
> "socat VSOCK-CONNECT:2:1234 UNIX-RECV:/path/to/sock"
> Using sockmap (this patch):
> - 168.8 MB/s (+121%)
> - The guest redirector was a simple sockmap echo server,
> redirecting unix ingress to vsock 2:1234 egress.
> - Same sender and server programs
>
> *Note: these numbers are from RFC v1
>
> Only the virtio transport has been tested. The loopback transport was
> used in writing bpf/selftests, but not thoroughly tested otherwise.
>
> This series requires the skb patch.
Appears reasonable to me although I didn't review internals of all
the af_vsock stuff. I see it got merged great.
One nit, I have a series coming shortly to pull the tests out of
the sockmap_listen and into a sockmap_vsock because I don't think they
belong in _listen but that is just a refactor.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists