On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:01:33AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:40:24AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > 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. > > > > 1 or 3 imho. I wouldn't expect a lot from 2. I slightly favor 3 and > Jason 1. So take your pick :) > Yes, I agree :) Maybe "Jason 1" could be the short term (and an opportunity to study better the code and sources of overhead) and "new AF_VSOCK + new virtio-vsock" the long term goal with the multi-transport support in mind. Thank you so much for your guidance and useful advice, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
