Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

[Gregory Haskins]

Ira W. Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:15:37PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:39:45AM -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:07:50PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> What it is: vhost net is a character device that can be used to reduce
>>>> the number of system calls involved in virtio networking.
>>>> Existing virtio net code is used in the guest without modification.
>>>>
>>>> There's similarity with vringfd, with some differences and reduced scope
>>>> - uses eventfd for signalling
>>>> - structures can be moved around in memory at any time (good for migration)
>>>> - support memory table and not just an offset (needed for kvm)
>>>>
>>>> common virtio related code has been put in a separate file vhost.c and
>>>> can be made into a separate module if/when more backends appear.  I used
>>>> Rusty's lguest.c as the source for developing this part : this supplied
>>>> me with witty comments I wouldn't be able to write myself.
>>>>
>>>> What it is not: vhost net is not a bus, and not a generic new system
>>>> call. No assumptions are made on how guest performs hypercalls.
>>>> Userspace hypervisors are supported as well as kvm.
>>>>
>>>> How it works: Basically, we connect virtio frontend (configured by
>>>> userspace) to a backend. The backend could be a network device, or a
>>>> tun-like device. In this version I only support raw socket as a backend,
>>>> which can be bound to e.g. SR IOV, or to macvlan device.  Backend is
>>>> also configured by userspace, including vlan/mac etc.
>>>>
>>>> Status:
>>>> This works for me, and I haven't see any crashes.
>>>> I have done some light benchmarking (with v4), compared to userspace, I
>>>> see improved latency (as I save up to 4 system calls per packet) but not
>>>> bandwidth/CPU (as TSO and interrupt mitigation are not supported).  For
>>>> ping benchmark (where there's no TSO) troughput is also improved.
>>>>
>>>> Features that I plan to look at in the future:
>>>> - tap support
>>>> - TSO
>>>> - interrupt mitigation
>>>> - zero copy
>>>>
>>> Hello Michael,
>>>
>>> I've started looking at vhost with the intention of using it over PCI to
>>> connect physical machines together.
>>>
>>> The part that I am struggling with the most is figuring out which parts
>>> of the rings are in the host's memory, and which parts are in the
>>> guest's memory.
>> All rings are in guest's memory, to match existing virtio code.
> 
> Ok, this makes sense.
> 
>> vhost
>> assumes that the memory space of the hypervisor userspace process covers
>> the whole of guest memory.
> 
> Is this necessary? Why? The assumption seems very wrong when you're
> doing data transport between two physical systems via PCI.

FWIW: VBUS handles this situation via the "memctx" abstraction.  IOW,
the memory is not assumed to be a userspace address.  Rather, it is a
memctx-specific address, which can be userspace, or any other type
(including hardware, dma-engine, etc).  As long as the memctx knows how
to translate it, it will work.

Kind Regards,
-Greg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature