Virtualization - Jul 2019 - [PATCH v4 4/5] vhost/vsock: split packets to send using multiple buffers

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> If the packets to sent to the guest are bigger than the buffer
> available, we can split them, using multiple buffers and fixing
> the length in the packet header.
> This is safe since virtio-vsock supports only stream sockets.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
So how does it work right now? If an app
does sendmsg with a 64K buffer and the other
side publishes 4K buffers - does it just stall?

> ---
>  drivers/vhost/vsock.c                   | 66 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>  net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 15 ++++--
>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> index 6c8390a2af52..9f57736fe15e 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>  		struct iov_iter iov_iter;
>  		unsigned out, in;
>  		size_t nbytes;
> -		size_t len;
> +		size_t iov_len, payload_len;
>  		int head;
>  
>  		spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> @@ -147,8 +147,24 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock *vsock,
>  			break;
>  		}
>  
> -		len = iov_length(&vq->iov[out], in);
> -		iov_iter_init(&iov_iter, READ, &vq->iov[out], in, len);
> +		iov_len = iov_length(&vq->iov[out], in);
> +		if (iov_len < sizeof(pkt->hdr)) {
> +			virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
> +			vq_err(vq, "Buffer len [%zu] too small\n", iov_len);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		iov_iter_init(&iov_iter, READ, &vq->iov[out], in, iov_len);
> +		payload_len = pkt->len - pkt->off;
> +
> +		/* If the packet is greater than the space available in the
> +		 * buffer, we split it using multiple buffers.
> +		 */
> +		if (payload_len > iov_len - sizeof(pkt->hdr))
> +			payload_len = iov_len - sizeof(pkt->hdr);
> +
> +		/* Set the correct length in the header */
> +		pkt->hdr.len = cpu_to_le32(payload_len);
>  
>  		nbytes = copy_to_iter(&pkt->hdr, sizeof(pkt->hdr),
&iov_iter);
>  		if (nbytes != sizeof(pkt->hdr)) {
> @@ -157,33 +173,47 @@ vhost_transport_do_send_pkt(struct vhost_vsock
*vsock,
>  			break;
>  		}
>  
> -		nbytes = copy_to_iter(pkt->buf, pkt->len, &iov_iter);
> -		if (nbytes != pkt->len) {
> +		nbytes = copy_to_iter(pkt->buf + pkt->off, payload_len,
> +				      &iov_iter);
> +		if (nbytes != payload_len) {
>  			virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
>  			vq_err(vq, "Faulted on copying pkt buf\n");
>  			break;
>  		}
>  
> -		vhost_add_used(vq, head, sizeof(pkt->hdr) + pkt->len);
> +		vhost_add_used(vq, head, sizeof(pkt->hdr) + payload_len);
>  		added = true;
>  
> -		if (pkt->reply) {
> -			int val;
> -
> -			val = atomic_dec_return(&vsock->queued_replies);
> -
> -			/* Do we have resources to resume tx processing? */
> -			if (val + 1 == tx_vq->num)
> -				restart_tx = true;
> -		}
> -
>  		/* Deliver to monitoring devices all correctly transmitted
>  		 * packets.
>  		 */
>  		virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(pkt);
>  
> -		total_len += pkt->len;
> -		virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
> +		pkt->off += payload_len;
> +		total_len += payload_len;
> +
> +		/* If we didn't send all the payload we can requeue the packet
> +		 * to send it with the next available buffer.
> +		 */
> +		if (pkt->off < pkt->len) {
> +			spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> +			list_add(&pkt->list, &vsock->send_pkt_list);
> +			spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> +		} else {
> +			if (pkt->reply) {
> +				int val;
> +
> +				val = atomic_dec_return(&vsock->queued_replies);
> +
> +				/* Do we have resources to resume tx
> +				 * processing?
> +				 */
> +				if (val + 1 == tx_vq->num)
> +					restart_tx = true;
> +			}
> +
> +			virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
> +		}
>  	} while(likely(!vhost_exceeds_weight(vq, ++pkts, total_len)));
>  	if (added)
>  		vhost_signal(&vsock->dev, vq);
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> index 34a2b42313b7..56fab3f03d0e 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> @@ -97,8 +97,17 @@ static struct sk_buff *virtio_transport_build_skb(void
*opaque)
>  	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt = opaque;
>  	struct af_vsockmon_hdr *hdr;
>  	struct sk_buff *skb;
> +	size_t payload_len;
> +	void *payload_buf;
>  
> -	skb = alloc_skb(sizeof(*hdr) + sizeof(pkt->hdr) + pkt->len,
> +	/* A packet could be split to fit the RX buffer, so we can retrieve
> +	 * the payload length from the header and the buffer pointer taking
> +	 * care of the offset in the original packet.
> +	 */
> +	payload_len = le32_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.len);
> +	payload_buf = pkt->buf + pkt->off;
> +
> +	skb = alloc_skb(sizeof(*hdr) + sizeof(pkt->hdr) + payload_len,
>  			GFP_ATOMIC);
>  	if (!skb)
>  		return NULL;
> @@ -138,8 +147,8 @@ static struct sk_buff *virtio_transport_build_skb(void
*opaque)
>  
>  	skb_put_data(skb, &pkt->hdr, sizeof(pkt->hdr));
>  
> -	if (pkt->len) {
> -		skb_put_data(skb, pkt->buf, pkt->len);
> +	if (payload_len) {
> +		skb_put_data(skb, payload_buf, payload_len);
>  	}
>  
>  	return skb;
> -- 
> 2.20.1

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > If the packets to sent to the guest are bigger than the buffer
> > available, we can split them, using multiple buffers and fixing
> > the length in the packet header.
> > This is safe since virtio-vsock supports only stream sockets.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
>
> So how does it work right now? If an app
> does sendmsg with a 64K buffer and the other
> side publishes 4K buffers - does it just stall?
Before this series, the 64K (or bigger) user messages was split in 4K packets
(fixed in the code) and queued in an internal list for the TX worker.

After this series, we will queue up to 64K packets and then it will be split in
the TX worker, depending on the size of the buffers available in the
vring. (The idea was to allow EWMA or a configuration of the buffers size, but
for now we postponed it)

Note: virtio-vsock only supports stream socket for now.

Thanks,
Stefano

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at
redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > If the packets to sent to the guest are bigger than the buffer
> > > available, we can split them, using multiple buffers and fixing
> > > the length in the packet header.
> > > This is safe since virtio-vsock supports only stream sockets.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
> >
> > So how does it work right now? If an app
> > does sendmsg with a 64K buffer and the other
> > side publishes 4K buffers - does it just stall?
> 
> Before this series, the 64K (or bigger) user messages was split in 4K
packets
> (fixed in the code) and queued in an internal list for the TX worker.
> 
> After this series, we will queue up to 64K packets and then it will be
split in
> the TX worker, depending on the size of the buffers available in the
> vring. (The idea was to allow EWMA or a configuration of the buffers size,
but
> for now we postponed it)
Got it. Using workers for xmit is IMHO a bad idea btw.
Why is it done like this?
> Note: virtio-vsock only supports stream socket for now.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano