On Sat, 2023-01-07 at 00:29 +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> This commit changes virtio/vsock to use sk_buff instead of
> virtio_vsock_pkt. Beyond better conforming to other net code, using
> sk_buff allows vsock to use sk_buff-dependent features in the future
> (such as sockmap) and improves throughput.
>
> This patch introduces the following performance changes:
>
> Tool/Config: uperf w/ 64 threads, SOCK_STREAM
> Test Runs: 5, mean of results
> Before: commit 95ec6bce2a0b ("Merge branch 'net-ipa-more-endpoints'")
>
> Test: 64KB, g2h
> Before: 21.63 Gb/s
> After: 25.59 Gb/s (+18%)
>
> Test: 16B, g2h
> Before: 11.86 Mb/s
> After: 17.41 Mb/s (+46%)
>
> Test: 64KB, h2g
> Before: 2.15 Gb/s
> After: 3.6 Gb/s (+67%)
>
> Test: 16B, h2g
> Before: 14.38 Mb/s
> After: 18.43 Mb/s (+28%)
>
> Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Tested using vsock_test g2h and h2g. I'm not sure if it is standard
> practice here to carry Acks and Reviews forward to future versions, but
> I'm doing that here to hopefully make life easier for maintainers.
> Please let me know if it is not standard practice.
As Jakub noted, there is no clear rule for tag passing across different
patch revisions.
Here, given the complexity of the patch and the not trivial list of
changes, I would have preferred you would have dropped my tag.
> Changes in v9:
> - check length in rx header
> - guard alloactor from small requests
> - squashed fix for v8 bug reported by syzbot:
> syzbot+30b72abaa17c07fe39dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's not clear to me what/where is the fix exactly, could you please
clarify?
Thanks!
Paolo
