On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:50:28PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:14:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it's just a branch, for ethernet, go for networking stack. otherwise
> > > go for vsock core?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that should work.
> >
> > So, I should refactor the functions that can be called also from the vsock
> > core, in order to remove "struct net_device *dev" parameter.
> > Maybe creating some wrappers for the network stack.
> >
> > Otherwise I should create a fake net_device for vsock_core.
> >
> > What do you suggest?
>
> Neither.
>
> I think what Jason was saying all along is this:
>
> virtio net doesn't actually lose packets, at least most
> of the time. And it actually most of the time
> passes all packets to host. So it's possible to use a virtio net
> device (possibly with a feature flag that says "does not lose packets,
> all packets go to host") and build vsock on top.
Yes, I got it after the latest Jason's reply.
>
> and all of this is nice, but don't expect anything easy,
> or any quick results.
I expected this... :-(
>
> Also, in a sense it's a missed opportunity: we could cut out a lot
> of fat and see just how fast can a protocol that is completely
> new and separate from networking stack go.
In this case, if we will try to do a PoC, what do you think is better?
1. new AF_VSOCK + network-stack + virtio-net modified
Maybe it is allow us to reuse a lot of stuff already written,
but we will go through the network stack
2. new AF_VSOCK + glue + virtio-net modified
Intermediate approach, similar to Jason's proposal
3, new AF_VSOCK + new virtio-vsock
Can be the thinnest, but we have to rewrite many things, with the risk
of making the same mistakes as the current implementation.
> Instead vsock implementation carries so much baggage from both
> networking stack - such as softirq processing - and itself such as
> workqueues, global state and crude locking - to the point where
> it's actually slower than TCP.
I agree, and I'm finding new issues while I'm trying to support nested
VMs, allowing multiple vsock transports (virtio-vsock and vhost-vsock in
the KVM case) at runtime.
>
[...]
> > >
> > > I suggest to do this step by step:
> > >
> > > 1) use virtio-net but keep some protocol logic
> > >
> > > 2) separate protocol logic and merge it to exist Linux networking stack
> >
> > Make sense, thanks for the suggestions, I'll try to do these steps!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefano
>
>
> An alternative is look at sources of overhead in vsock and get rid of
> them, or rewrite it from scratch focusing on performance.
I started looking at virtio-vsock and vhost-vsock trying to do very
simple changes [1] to increase the performance. I should send a v4 of that
series as a very short term, then I'd like to have a deeper look to understand
if it is better to try to optimize or rewrite it from scratch.
Thanks,
Stefano
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10970145/
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
