lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v4 00/18] Provide a zero-copy method on KVM virtio-net.
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 03:55:48PM +0800, Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> Michael,
> Sorry, somehow I missed this mail. :-(
>
> >> Here, we have ever considered 2 ways to utilize the page constructor
> >> API to dispense the user buffers.
> >>
> >> One: Modify __alloc_skb() function a bit, it can only allocate a
> >> structure of sk_buff, and the data pointer is pointing to a
> >> user buffer which is coming from a page constructor API.
> >> Then the shinfo of the skb is also from guest.
> >> When packet is received from hardware, the skb->data is filled
> >> directly by h/w. What we have done is in this way.
> >>
> >> Pros: We can avoid any copy here.
> >> Cons: Guest virtio-net driver needs to allocate skb as almost
> >> the same method with the host NIC drivers, say the size
> >> of netdev_alloc_skb() and the same reserved space in the
> >> head of skb. Many NIC drivers are the same with guest and
> >> ok for this. But some lastest NIC drivers reserves special
> >> room in skb head. To deal with it, we suggest to provide
> >> a method in guest virtio-net driver to ask for parameter
> >> we interest from the NIC driver when we know which device
> >> we have bind to do zero-copy. Then we ask guest to do so.
> >> Is that reasonable?
>
> >Do you still do this?
>
> Currently, we still use the first way. But we now ignore the room which
> host skb_reserve() required when device is doing zero-copy. Now we don't
> taint guest virtio-net driver with a new method by this way.
>
> >> Two: Modify driver to get user buffer allocated from a page constructor
> >> API(to substitute alloc_page()), the user buffer are used as payload
> >> buffers and filled by h/w directly when packet is received. Driver
> >> should associate the pages with skb (skb_shinfo(skb)->frags). For
> >> the head buffer side, let host allocates skb, and h/w fills it.
> >> After that, the data filled in host skb header will be copied into
> >> guest header buffer which is submitted together with the payload buffer.
> >>
> >> Pros: We could less care the way how guest or host allocates their
> >> buffers.
> >> Cons: We still need a bit copy here for the skb header.
> >>
> >> We are not sure which way is the better here. This is the first thing we want
> >> to get comments from the community. We wish the modification to the network
> >> part will be generic which not used by vhost-net backend only, but a user
> >> application may use it as well when the zero-copy device may provides async
> >> read/write operations later.
>
> >I commented on this in the past. Do you still want comments?
>
> Now we continue with the first way and try to push it. But any comments about the two methods are still welcome.
>
> >That's nice. The thing to do is probably to enable GSO/TSO
> >and see what we get this way. Also, mergeable buffer support
> >was recently posted and I hope to merge it for 2.6.35.
> >You might want to take a look.
>
> I'm looking at the mergeable buffer. I think GSO/GRO support with zero-copy also needs it.
> Currently, GSO/TSO is still not supported by vhost-net?

GSO/TSO are currently supported with tap and macvtap,
AF_PACKET socket backend still needs some work to
enable GSO.

> --
> MST


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-09 11:33    [W:0.307 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site