Linux Virtualization - Nov 2018 - [RFC] Discuss about an new idea "Vsock over Virtio-net"

On 2018/11/29 ??10:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018/11/15 ??3:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:56:03AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>>>> Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over
Virtio-net".
>>>> This idea has two advantages:
>>>> First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like
batching,
>>>> mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue, etc.
>>>> Second, it can reduce many duplicate codes and make it easy to
be
>>>> maintained.
>>> I'm not sure I get the motivation. Which features of
>>> virtio net are relevant to vsock?
>>
>> Vsock is just a L2 (and above) protocol from the view of the device.
> I don't believe so. I think virtio-vsock operates at a transport level.
> There is in theory a bit of network level but we don't really implement
> it as it's only host to guest.  I am not aware of any data link
> functionality n virtio-vsock. virtio-vsock provides services such as
> connection-oriented communication, reliability, flow control and
> multiplexing.

Ok, consider it doesn't implement L2, it's pretty fit for virtio-net I 
believe?

>
>> So I
>> think we should answer the question why we need two different paths for
>> networking traffic? Or what is the fundamental reason that makes vsock
does
>> not go for virtio-net?
> So virtio-vsock ensures reliability.

It's done at the level of protocol instead of virtio transport or virtio 
device.

>   If you want to compare it with
> something that would be TCP or QUIC.  The fundamental difference between
> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss
environment.
> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to
> discard any unacked data.

Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to 
device itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.


Thanks

>
>
>> I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could be
shared in
>> both guest and host (or even qemu) for not duplicating features(bugs).
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> The ones that you mention
>>> all seem to be mostly of use to the networking stack.
>>>
>>>

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> 
> On 2018/11/29 ??10:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018/11/15 ??3:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:56:03AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Several days ago, I discussed with jason about
"Vsock over Virtio-net".
> > > > > This idea has two advantages:
> > > > > First, it can use many great features of virtio-net,
like batching,
> > > > > mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue, etc.
> > > > > Second, it can reduce many duplicate codes and make it
easy to be
> > > > > maintained.
> > > > I'm not sure I get the motivation. Which features of
> > > > virtio net are relevant to vsock?
> > > 
> > > Vsock is just a L2 (and above) protocol from the view of the
device.
> > I don't believe so. I think virtio-vsock operates at a transport
level.
> > There is in theory a bit of network level but we don't really
implement
> > it as it's only host to guest.  I am not aware of any data link
> > functionality n virtio-vsock. virtio-vsock provides services such as
> > connection-oriented communication, reliability, flow control and
> > multiplexing.
> 
> 
> Ok, consider it doesn't implement L2, it's pretty fit for
virtio-net I
> believe?
> 
> 
> > 
> > > So I
> > > think we should answer the question why we need two different
paths for
> > > networking traffic? Or what is the fundamental reason that makes
vsock does
> > > not go for virtio-net?
> > So virtio-vsock ensures reliability.
> 
> 
> It's done at the level of protocol instead of virtio transport or
virtio
> device.
> 
> 
> >   If you want to compare it with
> > something that would be TCP or QUIC.  The fundamental difference
between
> > virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss
environment.
> > So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free
to
> > discard any unacked data.
> 
> 
> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to
device
> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
> 
> 
> Thanks
Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
on top of virtio-net?

> 
> > 
> > 
> > > I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could
be shared in
> > > both guest and host (or even qemu) for not duplicating
features(bugs).
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > The ones that you mention
> > > > all seem to be mostly of use to the networking stack.
> > > > 
> > > >

On 2018/11/30 ??8:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>    If you want to compare it with
>>> something that would be TCP or QUIC.  The fundamental difference
between
>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss
environment.
>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always
free to
>>> discard any unacked data.
>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to
device
>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
> Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
> on top of virtio-net?
>
>
No, my question is why not do vsock through virtio-net.

Thanks