On 2018/12/4 9:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:10:58AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/11/30 21:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:10:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2018/11/30 下午8:55, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018/11/30 下午8:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally
>>>>>>> transparent to device
>>>>>>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
>>>>>> on top of virtio-net?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, my question is why not do vsock through virtio-net.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, it's not about vosck over ethernet, and it's not about
>>>> inventing new features or APIs. It's probably something like:
>>>>
>>>> - Let virtio-net driver probe vsock device and do vosck specific things if
>>>> needed to share as much codes.
>>>>
>>>> - A new kind of sockfd (which is vsock based) for vhost-net for it to do
>>>> vsock specific things (hopefully it can be transparent).
>>>>
>>>> The change should be totally transparent to userspace applications.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Which code is duplicated between virtio vsock and virtio net right now?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> AFAIK, there is almost no duplicate code between virtio vsock and virtio net now.
>>
>> But, if virtio vsock wants to support mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue feature,
>> it has some duplicate codes from virtio net. Based on it, we both think vsock
>> may use virtio net as a transport channel, in this way, vsock can use some of
>> virtio net great features.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yiwen.
>
> What I would do is just copy some code and show a performance
> benefit. If that works out it will be clearer which code
> should be shared.
>
Hi Michael,
I have already sent a series of patches (VSOCK: support mergeable rx buffer in vhost-vsock)
a month ago, and the performance as follows:
I write a tool to test the vhost-vsock performance, mainly send big
packet(64K) included guest->Host and Host->Guest. The result as
follows:
Before performance:
Single socket Multiple sockets(Max Bandwidth)
Guest->Host ~400MB/s ~480MB/s
Host->Guest ~1450MB/s ~1600MB/s
After performance:
Single socket Multiple sockets(Max Bandwidth)
Guest->Host ~1700MB/s ~2900MB/s
Host->Guest ~1700MB/s ~2900MB/s
>From the test results, the performance is improved obviously, and guest
memory will not be wasted.
In addition, multiqueue feature I have not implemented it yet.
Thanks,
Yiwen.
