Hi Bobby,
sorry for my late reply, but I have been offline these days.
I came back a few days ago and had to work off some accumulated work :-)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 08:35:11PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
Add support for sockmap to vsock.
We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS requests to
the host and this patch series greatly improves the performance of such a
setup.
Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by 121% in
basic testing.
Tested as follows.
Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock redirector -> host vsock server
Threads: 1
Payload: 64k
No sockmap:
- 76.3 MB/s
- The guest vsock redirector was
"socat VSOCK-CONNECT:2:1234 UNIX-RECV:/path/to/sock"
Using sockmap (this patch):
- 168.8 MB/s (+121%)
- The guest redirector was a simple sockmap echo server,
redirecting unix ingress to vsock 2:1234 egress.
- Same sender and server programs
*Note: these numbers are from RFC v1
Only the virtio transport has been tested. The loopback transport was used in
writing bpf/selftests, but not thoroughly tested otherwise.
This series requires the skb patch.
Changes in v2:
- vsock/bpf: rename vsock_dgram_* -> vsock_*
- vsock/bpf: change sk_psock_{get,put} and {lock,release}_sock() order to
minimize slock hold time
- vsock/bpf: use "new style" wait
- vsock/bpf: fix bug in wait log
- vsock/bpf: add check that recvmsg sk_type is one dgram, seqpacket, or stream.
Return error if not one of the three.
- virtio/vsock: comment __skb_recv_datagram() usage
- virtio/vsock: do not init copied in read_skb()
- vsock/bpf: add ifdef guard around struct proto in dgram_recvmsg()
- selftests/bpf: add vsock loopback config for aarch64
- selftests/bpf: add vsock loopback config for s390x
- selftests/bpf: remove vsock device from vmtest.sh qemu machine
- selftests/bpf: remove CONFIG_VIRTIO_VSOCKETS=y from config.x86_64
- vsock/bpf: move transport-related (e.g., if (!vsk->transport)) checks out of
fast path
The series looks in a good shape.
I left some small comments on the first patch, but I think the next
version could be without RFC, so we can receive some feedbacks from
net/bpf maintainers.
Great job!
Thanks,
Stefano
