On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2018/11/15 下午3:04, 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? > > > Vsock is just a L2 (and above) protocol from the view of the device. I don't believe so. I think virtio-vsock operates at a transport level. There is in theory a bit of network level but we don't really implement it as it's only host to guest. I am not aware of any data link functionality n virtio-vsock. virtio-vsock provides services such as connection-oriented communication, reliability, flow control and multiplexing. > So I > think we should answer the question why we need two different paths for > networking traffic? Or what is the fundamental reason that makes vsock does > not go for virtio-net? So virtio-vsock ensures reliability. If you want to compare it with something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment. So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to discard any unacked data. > I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could be shared in > both guest and host (or even qemu) for not duplicating features(bugs). > > Thanks > > > > The ones that you mention > > all seem to be mostly of use to the networking stack. > > > >
