On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:43:08AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:29:54 +0800 > > > > > On 2018/12/14 上午4:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 06:10:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >>> Hi: > >>> > >>> This series tries to access virtqueue metadata through kernel virtual > >>> address instead of copy_user() friends since they had too much > >>> overheads like checks, spec barriers or even hardware feature > >>> toggling. > >>> > >>> Test shows about 24% improvement on TX PPS. It should benefit other > >>> cases as well. > >>> > >>> Please review > >> I think the idea of speeding up userspace access is a good one. > >> However I think that moving all checks to start is way too aggressive. > > > > > > So did packet and AF_XDP. Anyway, sharing address space and access > > them directly is the fastest way. Performance is the major > > consideration for people to choose backend. Compare to userspace > > implementation, vhost does not have security advantages at any > > level. If vhost is still slow, people will start to develop backends > > based on e.g AF_XDP. > > Exactly, this is precisely how this kind of problem should be solved. > > Michael, I strongly support the approach Jason is taking here, and I > would like to ask you to seriously reconsider your objections. > > Thank you. Okay. Won't be the first time I'm wrong. Let's say we ignore security aspects, but we need to make sure the following all keep working (broken with this revision): - file backed memory (I didn't see where we mark memory dirty - if we don't we get guest memory corruption on close, if we do then host crash as https://lwn.net/Articles/774411/ seems to apply here?) - THP - auto-NUMA Because vhost isn't like AF_XDP where you can just tell people "use hugetlbfs" and "data is removed on close" - people are using it in lots of configurations with guest memory shared between rings and unrelated data. Jason, thoughts on these? -- MST
