On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:52:52PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: >On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:59 AM Dust Li <dust.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:05:59PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: >> >> Hi Cong, >> >> This is a good topic ! >> We have proposed another solution to accelerate Inter-VM tcp/ip communication >> transparently within the same host based on SMC-D + virtio-ism >> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202212/msg00030.html >> >> I don't know, can we do better with your proposal ? > >We knew SMC and it _is_ actually why I have this eBPF based proposal. >Sorry for not providing more details here, since I just want to keep >this proposal >brief and will certain have all the details in our presentation if our >proposal gets >accepted. > >The main problem of SMC is it is not fully transparent, LD_PRELOAD could >work for most cases but not all. Therefore, I don't think introducing any new >socket family is in the right direction at all. Actually, this is not really true. We have introduce several ways to solve this. The best way I think is to support IPPROTO_SMC[1] in SMC and using the same eBPF infrastructure as MPTCP has already contributed[2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231113045758.GB121324@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1692147782.git.geliang.tang@xxxxxxxx > >(There are some other problems with SMC too, for instance, it requires more >than a 3-way handshake.) Right, but I don't see much performance penalty because of the extra handshake, setting up the share memory is always the slowest part in a share memory communication model. > >And I don't think there is any conflict or overlap here at all. Our eBPF-based >solution relies on the existing inter-VM shared memory, no matter it is ivshmem >or virtio-ism. We don't propose any new way of sharing memory, what we >propose is merely using an existing one and building our solution on top. > >In fact, we believe our solution can be on top of your virtio-ism, >since it is just >another flat memory region from our point of view. > >Hope this helps. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against to your proposal at all, I like it. I just hope different solutions can be seen. Best regards, Dust > >Thanks.
