Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:44:34 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the
 throughput
Message-ID: <20190404154434.shaxqzfzacfqqyzx@steredhat>
References: <20190404105838.101559-1-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20190404141410.GA25152@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190404141410.GA25152@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:14:10PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > This series tries to increase the throughput of virtio-vsock with slight
> > changes:
> >  - patch 1/4: reduces the number of credit update messages sent to the
> >               transmitter
> >  - patch 2/4: allows the host to split packets on multiple buffers,
> >               in this way, we can remove the packet size limit to
> >               VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE
> >  - patch 3/4: uses VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE as the max packet size
> >               allowed
> >  - patch 4/4: increases RX buffer size to 64 KiB (affects only host->guest)
> > 
> > RFC:
> >  - maybe patch 4 can be replaced with multiple queues with different
> >    buffer sizes or using EWMA to adapt the buffer size to the traffic
> > 
> >  - as Jason suggested in a previous thread [1] I'll evaluate to use
> >    virtio-net as transport, but I need to understand better how to
> >    interface with it, maybe introducing sk_buff in virtio-vsock.
> > 
> > Any suggestions?
> 
> Great performance results, nice job!

:)

> 
> Please include efficiency numbers (bandwidth / CPU utilization) in the
> future.  Due to the nature of these optimizations it's unlikely that
> efficiency has decreased, so I'm not too worried about it this time.

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll measure also the efficiency for future
optimizations.

Cheers,
Stefano