On 2018/11/15 下午4:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 03:38:15PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
On 2018/11/15 15:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:56:03AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone,
Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over Virtio-net".
This idea has two advantages:
First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like batching,
mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue, etc.
Second, it can reduce many duplicate codes and make it easy to be
maintained.
I'm not sure I get the motivation. Which features of
virtio net are relevant to vsock? The ones that you mention
all seem to be mostly of use to the networking stack.
Before the implement, I want to discuss with everyone again, and
want to know everyone's suggestions.
After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement
this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a
pity.:(
-------------------------Simple idea------------------------------
1. The packet layout will become as follows:
+---------------------------------+
| Virtio-net header |
|(struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf)|
Which fields in virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf are of interest to vsock?
Hi Michael,
Yes, currently vsock has poor performance, first, it only support transport
small packet, in order to make the balance between performance and guest memory.
In order to solve this problem, there are two features vsock can used,
mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue. Based on this, there are some shared
codes vsock can use.
Thanks,
Yiwen.
Supporting more queues with vsock is probably significantly
less work than a completely new interface.
For mergeable, as buffers are split arbitrarily, why can't you combine
them within guest driver before sending them up the stack?
I don't get this question. But I think the fact that we use mergeable
buffer by default for virtio-net answer the question. Or anything
special in vsock?
Thanks
Probably better than relying on host to do it.
