On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 01:46:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:39 AM Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 06:00:52PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:13:22PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > WRT netdev, do we foresee big gains beyond just leveraging the netdev's > > namespace? > > It's a leverage of the network subsystem (netdevice, steering, uAPI, > tracing, probably a lot of others), not only its namespace. It can > avoid duplicating existing mechanisms in a vsock specific way. If we > manage to do that, namespace support will be a "byproduct". > [...] > > Yes, it can. I think we need to evaluate both approaches (that's why I > raise the approach of reusing netdevice). We can hear from others. > I agree it is worth evaluating. If netdev is being considered, then it is probably also worth considering your suggestion from a few years back to add these capabilities by building vsock on top of virtio-net [1]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/2747ac1f-390e-99f9-b24e-f179af79a9da@xxxxxxxxxx/ Considering that the current vsock protocol will only ever be able to enjoy a restricted feature set of these other net subsystems due to its lack of tolerance for packet loss (e.g., no multiqueue steering, no packet scheduling), I wonder if it would be best to a) wait until a user requires these capabilities, and b) at that point extend vsock to tolerate packet loss (add a seqnum)? > > > > Some other thoughts I had: netdev's flow control features would all have > > to be ignored or disabled somehow (I think dev_direct_xmit()?), because > > queueing introduces packet loss and the vsock protocol is unable to > > survive packet loss. > > Or just allow it and then configuring a qdisc that may drop packets > could be treated as a misconfiguration. > That is possible, but when I was playing with vsock qdisc the only one that worked was pfifo_fast/pfifo, as the others that I tested async drop packets. Thanks, Bobby
