On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:20:07AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:57:06AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:58:34PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:03:51PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:50:45AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:16:50AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:58:53PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:42:23PM -0700, Jiang Wang . wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:21 AM Stefano Garzarella
<sgarz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 02:50:17PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:36:02AM +0000, jiang.wang
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
[...]
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> +Datagram sockets provide connectionless unreliable messages
of
> > > > > > > > >> +a fixed maximum length.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Plus unordered (?) and with message boundaries. In other words:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Datagram sockets provide unordered, unreliable,
connectionless message
> > > > > > > > > with message boundaries and a fixed maximum length.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I didn't think of the fixed maximum length aspect before. I
guess the
> > > > > > > > >intention is that the rx buffer size is the message size
limit? That's
> > > > > > > > >different from UDP messages, which can be fragmented into
multiple IP
> > > > > > > > >packets and can be larger than 64KiB:
> > > > > > > >
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol#UDP_datagram_structure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Is it possible to support large datagram messages in vsock?
I'm a little
> > > > > > > > >concerned that applications that run successfully over UDP
will not be
> > > > > > > > >portable if vsock has this limitation because it would impose
extra
> > > > > > > > >message boundaries that the application protocol might not
tolerate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe we can reuse the same approach Arseny is using for
SEQPACKET.
> > > > > > > > Fragment the packets according to the buffers in the virtqueue
and set
> > > > > > > > the EOR flag to indicate the last packet in the message.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree. Another option is to use the ones for skb since we may
need to
> > > > > > > use skbs for multiple transport support anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The important thing I think is to have a single flag in
virtio-vsock that
> > > > > > identifies pretty much the same thing: this is the last fragment of
a series
> > > > > > to rebuild a packet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should reuse the same flag for DGRAM and SEQPACKET.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > >
> > > > > Well DGRAM can drop data so I wonder whether it can work ...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep, this is true, but the channel should not be losing packets, so if
the
> > > > receiver discards packets, it knows that it must then discard all of
them
> > > > until the EOR.
> > >
> > > That is not so easy - they can come mixed up from multiple sources.
> >
> > I think we can prevent mixing because virtuqueue is point to point and its
> > use is not thread safe, so the access (in the same peer) is already
> > serialized.
> > In the end the packet would be fragmented only before copying it to the
> > virtuqueue.
> >
> > But maybe I missed something...
>
> Well I ask what's the point of fragmenting then. I assume it's so we
> can pass huge messages around so you can't keep locks ...
>
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this similar to what we do in virtio-net with
mergeable buffers?
The point of mergeable buffers is to use less memory: both for each
packet and for a full receive vq.
Also in this case I think the fragmentation will happen only in the device,
since the driver can enqueue the entire buffer.
Maybe we can reuse mergeable buffers for virtio-vsock if the EOR flag is not
suitable.
That sounds very reasonable.
It should also allow us to save the header for each fragment.
@Jiang Do you want to explore this?
I'm talking about VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF feature.
IIUC in the vsock device the fragmentation for DGRAM will happen just
before
to queue it in the virtqueue, and the device can check how many buffers are
available in the queue and it can decide whether to queue them all up or
throw them away.
>
> > > Sure linux net core does this but with fragmentation added in,
> > > I start wondering whether you are beginning to reinvent the net stack
> > > ...
> >
> > No, I hope not :-), in the end our advantage is that we have a channel that
> > doesn't lose packets, so I guess we can make assumptions that the network
> > stack can't.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefano
>
> I still don't know how will credit accounting work for datagram,
> but proposals I saw seem to actually lose packets ...
>
I still don't know too, but I think it's not an issue in the RX side,
since if it doesn't have space, can drop all the fragment.
Another option to avoid fragmentation could be to allocate 64K buffers for
the new DGRAM virtqueue.
That's a lot of buffers ...
Yep I see, and they would often be mostly unused...
In this way we will have at most 64K packets, which is similar to
UDP/IP,
without extra work for the fragmentation.
IIRC default MTU is 1280 not 64K ...
I was thinking that UDP at most can support 64K messages that IP should
fragment according to MTU.
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
