Linux Virtualization - Jul 2019 - [RFC] virtio-net: share receive_*() and add_recvbuf_*() with virtio-vsock

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 03:37:00PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> 
> On 2019/7/10 ??11:37, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > Hi,
> > as Jason suggested some months ago, I looked better at the virtio-net
driver to
> > understand if we can reuse some parts also in the virtio-vsock driver,
since we
> > have similar challenges (mergeable buffers, page allocation, small
> > packets, etc.).
> > 
> > Initially, I would add the skbuff in the virtio-vsock in order to
re-use
> > receive_*() functions.
> 
> 
> Yes, that will be a good step.
> 
Okay, I'll go on this way.
> 
> > Then I would move receive_[small, big, mergeable]() and
> > add_recvbuf_[small, big, mergeable]() outside of virtio-net driver, in
order to
> > call them also from virtio-vsock. I need to do some refactoring (e.g.
leave the
> > XDP part on the virtio-net driver), but I think it is feasible.
> > 
> > The idea is to create a virtio-skb.[h,c] where put these functions and
a new
> > object where stores some attributes needed (e.g. hdr_len ) and status
(e.g.
> > some fields of struct receive_queue).
> 
> 
> My understanding is we could be more ambitious here. Do you see any blocker
> for reusing virtio-net directly? It's better to reuse not only the
functions
> but also the logic like NAPI to avoid re-inventing something buggy and
> duplicated.
> 
These are my concerns:
- virtio-vsock is not a "net_device", so a lot of code related to
  ethtool, net devices (MAC address, MTU, speed, VLAN, XDP, offloading) will be
  not used by virtio-vsock.

- virtio-vsock has a different header. We can consider it as part of
  virtio_net payload, but it precludes the compatibility with old hosts. This
  was one of the major doubts that made me think about using only the
  send/recv skbuff functions, that it shouldn't break the compatibility.
> 
> > This is an idea of virtio-skb.h that
> > I have in mind:
> >      struct virtskb;
> 
> 
> What fields do you want to store in virtskb? It looks to be exist sk_buff
is
> flexible enough to us?
My idea is to store queues information, like struct receive_queue or
struct send_queue, and some device attributes (e.g. hdr_len ).
> 
> 
> > 
> >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_small(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_big(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_mergeable(struct virtskb *vs,
...);
> > 
> >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_small(struct virtskb*vs, ...);
> >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_big(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_mergeable(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> > 
> > For the Guest->Host path it should be easier, so maybe I can add a
> > "virtskb_send(struct virtskb *vs, struct sk_buff *skb)" with
a part of the code
> > of xmit_skb().
> 
> 
> I may miss something, but I don't see any thing that prevents us from
using
> xmit_skb() directly.
> 
Yes, but my initial idea was to make it more parametric and not related to the
virtio_net_hdr, so the 'hdr_len' could be a parameter and the
'num_buffers' should be handled by the caller.
> 
> > 
> > Let me know if you have in mind better names or if I should put these
function
> > in another place.
> > 
> > I would like to leave the control part completely separate, so, for
example,
> > the two drivers will negotiate the features independently and they
will call
> > the right virtskb_receive_*() function based on the negotiation.
> 
> 
> If it's one the issue of negotiation, we can simply change the
> virtnet_probe() to deal with different devices.
> 
> 
> > 
> > I already started to work on it, but before to do more steps and send
an RFC
> > patch, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > Do you think that makes sense?
> > Do you see any issue or a better solution?
> 
> 
> I still think we need to seek a way of adding some codes on virtio-net.c
> directly if there's no huge different in the processing of TX/RX. That
would
> save us a lot time.
After the reading of the buffers from the virtqueue I think the process
is slightly different, because virtio-net will interface with the network
stack, while virtio-vsock will interface with the vsock-core (socket).
So the virtio-vsock implements the following:
- control flow mechanism to avoid to loose packets, informing the peer
  about the amount of memory available in the receive queue using some
  fields in the virtio_vsock_hdr
- de-multiplexing parsing the virtio_vsock_hdr and choosing the right
  socket depending on the port
- socket state handling

We can use the virtio-net as transport, but we should add a lot of
code to skip "net device" stuff when it is used by the virtio-vsock.
This could break something in virtio-net, for this reason, I thought to reuse
only the send/recv functions starting from the idea to split the virtio-net
driver in two parts:
a. one with all stuff related to the network stack
b. one with the stuff needed to communicate with the host

And use skbuff to communicate between parts. In this way, virtio-vsock
can use only the b part.

Maybe we can do this split in a better way, but I'm not sure it is
simple.

Thanks,
Stefano

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:41:34PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 03:37:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> > On 2019/7/10 ??11:37, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > as Jason suggested some months ago, I looked better at the
virtio-net driver to
> > > understand if we can reuse some parts also in the virtio-vsock
driver, since we
> > > have similar challenges (mergeable buffers, page allocation,
small
> > > packets, etc.).
> > > 
> > > Initially, I would add the skbuff in the virtio-vsock in order to
re-use
> > > receive_*() functions.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, that will be a good step.
> > 
> 
> Okay, I'll go on this way.
> 
> > 
> > > Then I would move receive_[small, big, mergeable]() and
> > > add_recvbuf_[small, big, mergeable]() outside of virtio-net
driver, in order to
> > > call them also from virtio-vsock. I need to do some refactoring
(e.g. leave the
> > > XDP part on the virtio-net driver), but I think it is feasible.
> > > 
> > > The idea is to create a virtio-skb.[h,c] where put these
functions and a new
> > > object where stores some attributes needed (e.g. hdr_len ) and
status (e.g.
> > > some fields of struct receive_queue).
> > 
> > 
> > My understanding is we could be more ambitious here. Do you see any
blocker
> > for reusing virtio-net directly? It's better to reuse not only the
functions
> > but also the logic like NAPI to avoid re-inventing something buggy and
> > duplicated.
> > 
> 
> These are my concerns:
> - virtio-vsock is not a "net_device", so a lot of code related to
>   ethtool, net devices (MAC address, MTU, speed, VLAN, XDP, offloading)
will be
>   not used by virtio-vsock.
> 
> - virtio-vsock has a different header. We can consider it as part of
>   virtio_net payload, but it precludes the compatibility with old hosts.
This
>   was one of the major doubts that made me think about using only the
>   send/recv skbuff functions, that it shouldn't break the
compatibility.
> 
> > 
> > > This is an idea of virtio-skb.h that
> > > I have in mind:
> > >      struct virtskb;
> > 
> > 
> > What fields do you want to store in virtskb? It looks to be exist
sk_buff is
> > flexible enough to us?
> 
> My idea is to store queues information, like struct receive_queue or
> struct send_queue, and some device attributes (e.g. hdr_len ).
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_small(struct virtskb *vs,
...);
> > >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_big(struct virtskb *vs,
...);
> > >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_mergeable(struct virtskb
*vs, ...);
> > > 
> > >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_small(struct virtskb*vs, ...);
> > >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_big(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> > >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_mergeable(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> > > 
> > > For the Guest->Host path it should be easier, so maybe I can
add a
> > > "virtskb_send(struct virtskb *vs, struct sk_buff *skb)"
with a part of the code
> > > of xmit_skb().
> > 
> > 
> > I may miss something, but I don't see any thing that prevents us
from using
> > xmit_skb() directly.
> > 
> 
> Yes, but my initial idea was to make it more parametric and not related to
the
> virtio_net_hdr, so the 'hdr_len' could be a parameter and the
> 'num_buffers' should be handled by the caller.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Let me know if you have in mind better names or if I should put
these function
> > > in another place.
> > > 
> > > I would like to leave the control part completely separate, so,
for example,
> > > the two drivers will negotiate the features independently and
they will call
> > > the right virtskb_receive_*() function based on the negotiation.
> > 
> > 
> > If it's one the issue of negotiation, we can simply change the
> > virtnet_probe() to deal with different devices.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I already started to work on it, but before to do more steps and
send an RFC
> > > patch, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > > Do you think that makes sense?
> > > Do you see any issue or a better solution?
> > 
> > 
> > I still think we need to seek a way of adding some codes on
virtio-net.c
> > directly if there's no huge different in the processing of TX/RX.
That would
> > save us a lot time.
> 
> After the reading of the buffers from the virtqueue I think the process
> is slightly different, because virtio-net will interface with the network
> stack, while virtio-vsock will interface with the vsock-core (socket).
> So the virtio-vsock implements the following:
> - control flow mechanism to avoid to loose packets, informing the peer
>   about the amount of memory available in the receive queue using some
>   fields in the virtio_vsock_hdr
> - de-multiplexing parsing the virtio_vsock_hdr and choosing the right
>   socket depending on the port
> - socket state handling
> 
> We can use the virtio-net as transport, but we should add a lot of
> code to skip "net device" stuff when it is used by the
virtio-vsock.
> This could break something in virtio-net, for this reason, I thought to
reuse
> only the send/recv functions starting from the idea to split the virtio-net
> driver in two parts:
> a. one with all stuff related to the network stack
> b. one with the stuff needed to communicate with the host
> 
> And use skbuff to communicate between parts. In this way, virtio-vsock
> can use only the b part.
> 
> Maybe we can do this split in a better way, but I'm not sure it is
> simple.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
Frankly, skb is a huge structure which adds a lot of
overhead. I am not sure that using it is such a great idea
if building a device that does not have to interface
with the networking stack.

So I agree with Jason in theory. To clarify, he is basically saying
current implementation is all wrong, it should be a protocol and we
should teach networking stack that there are reliable net devices that
handle just this protocol. We could add a flag in virtio net that
will say it's such a device.

Whether it's doable, I don't know, and it's definitely not simple -
in
particular you will have to also re-implement existing devices in these
terms, and not just virtio - vmware vsock too.

If you want to do a POC you can add a new address family,
that's easier.

Just reusing random functions won't help, net stack
is very heavy, if it manages to outperform vsock it's
because vsock was not written with performance in mind.
But the smarts are in the core not virtio driver.
What makes vsock slow is design decisions like
using a workqueue to process packets,
not batching memory management etc etc.
All things that net core does for virtio net.

-- 
MST

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 03:52:21PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:41:34PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 03:37:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 2019/7/10 ??11:37, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > as Jason suggested some months ago, I looked better at the
virtio-net driver to
> > > > understand if we can reuse some parts also in the
virtio-vsock driver, since we
> > > > have similar challenges (mergeable buffers, page allocation,
small
> > > > packets, etc.).
> > > > 
> > > > Initially, I would add the skbuff in the virtio-vsock in
order to re-use
> > > > receive_*() functions.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, that will be a good step.
> > > 
> > 
> > Okay, I'll go on this way.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Then I would move receive_[small, big, mergeable]() and
> > > > add_recvbuf_[small, big, mergeable]() outside of virtio-net
driver, in order to
> > > > call them also from virtio-vsock. I need to do some
refactoring (e.g. leave the
> > > > XDP part on the virtio-net driver), but I think it is
feasible.
> > > > 
> > > > The idea is to create a virtio-skb.[h,c] where put these
functions and a new
> > > > object where stores some attributes needed (e.g. hdr_len )
and status (e.g.
> > > > some fields of struct receive_queue).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My understanding is we could be more ambitious here. Do you see
any blocker
> > > for reusing virtio-net directly? It's better to reuse not
only the functions
> > > but also the logic like NAPI to avoid re-inventing something
buggy and
> > > duplicated.
> > > 
> > 
> > These are my concerns:
> > - virtio-vsock is not a "net_device", so a lot of code
related to
> >   ethtool, net devices (MAC address, MTU, speed, VLAN, XDP,
offloading) will be
> >   not used by virtio-vsock.
> > 
> > - virtio-vsock has a different header. We can consider it as part of
> >   virtio_net payload, but it precludes the compatibility with old
hosts. This
> >   was one of the major doubts that made me think about using only the
> >   send/recv skbuff functions, that it shouldn't break the
compatibility.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > This is an idea of virtio-skb.h that
> > > > I have in mind:
> > > >      struct virtskb;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What fields do you want to store in virtskb? It looks to be exist
sk_buff is
> > > flexible enough to us?
> > 
> > My idea is to store queues information, like struct receive_queue or
> > struct send_queue, and some device attributes (e.g. hdr_len ).
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_small(struct virtskb
*vs, ...);
> > > >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_big(struct virtskb *vs,
...);
> > > >      struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_mergeable(struct
virtskb *vs, ...);
> > > > 
> > > >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_small(struct virtskb*vs, ...);
> > > >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_big(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
> > > >      int virtskb_add_recvbuf_mergeable(struct virtskb *vs,
...);
> > > > 
> > > > For the Guest->Host path it should be easier, so maybe I
can add a
> > > > "virtskb_send(struct virtskb *vs, struct sk_buff
*skb)" with a part of the code
> > > > of xmit_skb().
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I may miss something, but I don't see any thing that prevents
us from using
> > > xmit_skb() directly.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, but my initial idea was to make it more parametric and not
related to the
> > virtio_net_hdr, so the 'hdr_len' could be a parameter and the
> > 'num_buffers' should be handled by the caller.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Let me know if you have in mind better names or if I should
put these function
> > > > in another place.
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to leave the control part completely separate,
so, for example,
> > > > the two drivers will negotiate the features independently
and they will call
> > > > the right virtskb_receive_*() function based on the
negotiation.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If it's one the issue of negotiation, we can simply change
the
> > > virtnet_probe() to deal with different devices.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I already started to work on it, but before to do more steps
and send an RFC
> > > > patch, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > > > Do you think that makes sense?
> > > > Do you see any issue or a better solution?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I still think we need to seek a way of adding some codes on
virtio-net.c
> > > directly if there's no huge different in the processing of
TX/RX. That would
> > > save us a lot time.
> > 
> > After the reading of the buffers from the virtqueue I think the
process
> > is slightly different, because virtio-net will interface with the
network
> > stack, while virtio-vsock will interface with the vsock-core (socket).
> > So the virtio-vsock implements the following:
> > - control flow mechanism to avoid to loose packets, informing the peer
> >   about the amount of memory available in the receive queue using some
> >   fields in the virtio_vsock_hdr
> > - de-multiplexing parsing the virtio_vsock_hdr and choosing the right
> >   socket depending on the port
> > - socket state handling
> > 
> > We can use the virtio-net as transport, but we should add a lot of
> > code to skip "net device" stuff when it is used by the
virtio-vsock.
> > This could break something in virtio-net, for this reason, I thought
to reuse
> > only the send/recv functions starting from the idea to split the
virtio-net
> > driver in two parts:
> > a. one with all stuff related to the network stack
> > b. one with the stuff needed to communicate with the host
> > 
> > And use skbuff to communicate between parts. In this way, virtio-vsock
> > can use only the b part.
> > 
> > Maybe we can do this split in a better way, but I'm not sure it is
> > simple.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Stefano
> 
> Frankly, skb is a huge structure which adds a lot of
> overhead. I am not sure that using it is such a great idea
> if building a device that does not have to interface
> with the networking stack.
Thanks for the advice!
> 
> So I agree with Jason in theory. To clarify, he is basically saying
> current implementation is all wrong, it should be a protocol and we
> should teach networking stack that there are reliable net devices that
> handle just this protocol. We could add a flag in virtio net that
> will say it's such a device.
> 
> Whether it's doable, I don't know, and it's definitely not
simple - in
> particular you will have to also re-implement existing devices in these
> terms, and not just virtio - vmware vsock too.
> 
> If you want to do a POC you can add a new address family,
> that's easier.
Very interesting!
I agree with you. In this way we can completely split the protocol
logic, from the device.

As you said, it will not simple to do, but can be an opportunity to learn
better the Linux networking stack!
I'll try to do a PoC with AF_VSOCK2 that will use the virtio-net.
> 
> Just reusing random functions won't help, net stack
> is very heavy, if it manages to outperform vsock it's
> because vsock was not written with performance in mind.
> But the smarts are in the core not virtio driver.
> What makes vsock slow is design decisions like
> using a workqueue to process packets,
> not batching memory management etc etc.
> All things that net core does for virtio net.
Got it :)

Michael, Jason, thank you very much! Your suggestions are very useful!

Stefano