lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 2/6 net-next] netdevice.h: Add zero-copy flag in netdevice
From
Date
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 11:49 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 02:41 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > So the requirements are
> > > - data must be released in a timely fashion (e.g. unlike
> virtio-net
> > > tun or bridge)
> > The current patch doesn't enable tun zero-copy. tun will copy data
> It's
> > not an issue now.
> > We can disallow macvtap attach to bridge when
> > zero-copy is enabled.
>
> Attach macvtap to a tun device though. Or e.g. veth device ...
> So there should be so generic way to disable zerocopy.
> It can either be a whitelist or a blacklist.
> >
> > > - SG support
> > > - HIGHDMA support (on arches where this makes sense)
> >
> > This can be checked by device flags.
>
> OK, but pls note that SG can get turned off dynamically.
>
> > > - no filtering based on data (data is mapped in guest)
> >
> > > - on fast path no calls to skb_copy, skb_clone, pskb_copy,
> > > pskb_expand_head as these are slow
> >
> > Any calls to skb_copy, skb_clone, pskb_copy, pskb_expand_head will
> do a
> > copy. The performance should be the same as none zero-copy case
> before.
>
> I'm guessing a copy is cheaper than get_user_pages+copy+put_page.
> But maybe not by much. Care checking that?

That's I have done already. Patch is going out for review.

> > I have done/tested the patch V6, will send it out for review
> tomorrow.
> >
> > I am looking at where there are some cases, skb remains the same for
> > filtering.
>
> To reliably filter on data I think we'll need to copy it first,
> otherwise
> guest can change it. Most filters only look at the header though.
>
> > > First 2 requirements are a must, all other requirements
> > > are just dependencies to make sure zero copy will be faster
> > > than non zero copy.
> > > Using a new feature bit is probably the simplest approach to
> > > this. macvtap on top of most physical NICs most likely works
> > > correctly so it seems a bit more work than it needs to be,
> > > but it's also the safest one I think ...
> >
> > For "macvtap/vhost zero-copy" we can use SG & HIGHDMA to enable it,
> it
> > looks safe to me once patching skb_copy, skb_clone, pskb_copy,
> > pskb_expand_head.
> >
> > To extend zero-copy in other usages, we can have a new feature bit
> > later.
> >
> > Is that reasonable?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Shirley
>
> Is the problem is extra work needed to extend feature bits?

There is no problem to use it, Mahesh is working on this patch. I just
want to remove macvtap/vhost zero-copy patch dependency.

Thanks
Shirley



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-26 17:31    [W:0.166 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site