[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/6] vsock: add netdev to vhost/virtio vsock
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:07:55PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:02:33 +0000 Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > From a cursory look (and Documentation/ would be nice..) it feels
> > > very wrong to me. Do you know of any uses of a netdev which would
> > > be semantically similar to what you're doing? Treating netdevs as
> > > buildings blocks for arbitrary message passing solutions is something
> > > I dislike quite strongly.
> >
> > The big difference between vsock and "arbitrary message passing" is that
> > vsock is actually constrained by the virtio device that backs it (made
> > up of virtqueues and the underlying protocol). That virtqueue pair is
> > acting like the queues on a physical NIC, so it actually makes sense to
> > manage the queuing of vsock's device like we would manage the queueing
> > of a real device.
> >
> > Still, I concede that ignoring the netdev state is a probably bad idea.
> >
> > That said, I also think that using packet scheduling in vsock is a good
> > idea, and that ideally we can reuse Linux's already robust library of
> > packet scheduling algorithms by introducing qdisc somehow.
> We've been burnt in the past by people doing the "let me just pick
> these useful pieces out of netdev" thing. Makes life hard both for
> maintainers and users trying to make sense of the interfaces.
> What comes to mind if you're just after queuing is that we already
> bastardized the CoDel implementation (include/net/codel_impl.h).
> If CoDel is good enough for you maybe that's the easiest way?
> Although I suspect that you're after fairness not early drops.
> Wireless folks use CoDel as a second layer queuing. (CC: Toke)

That is certainly interesting to me. Sitting next to "codel_impl.h" is
"include/net/fq_impl.h", and it looks like it may solve the datagram
flooding issue. The downside to this approach is the baking of a
specific policy into vsock... which I don't exactly love either.

I'm not seeing too many other of these qdisc bastardizations in
include/net, are there any others that you are aware of?

> > > Could you recommend where I can learn more about vsocks?
> >
> > I think the spec is probably the best place to start[1].
> >
> > [1]:
> Eh, I was hoping it was a side channel of an existing virtio_net
> which is not the case. Given the zero-config requirement IDK if
> we'll be able to fit this into netdev semantics :(

It's certainly possible that it may not fit :/ I feel that it partially
depends on what we mean by zero-config. Is it "no config required to
have a working socket" or is it "no config required, but also no
tuning/policy/etc... supported"?


 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-17 02:50    [W:0.152 / U:6.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site