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:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:38:36 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] vsock/virtio: limit the memory used per-socket
Message-ID: <20191014083836.fumqbp4sfn5usys6@steredhat>
References: <20190717113030.163499-1-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20190717113030.163499-2-sgarzare@redhat.com>
 <20190729095956-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20190830094059.c7qo5cxrp2nkrncd@steredhat>
 <20190901024525-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAGxU2F7fA5UtkuMQbOHHy0noOGZUtpepBNKFg5afD81bynMVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191014081724.GD22963@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
 <2398c960-b6d7-8af3-fa25-d75344335db7@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2398c960-b6d7-8af3-fa25-d75344335db7@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:21:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2019/10/14 下午4:17, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE might have been useful for VMCI-specific
> > applications, but we should use SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF for portable
> > applications in the future.  Those socket options also work with other
> > address families.
> > 

I think hyperv_transport started to use it in this patch:
ac383f58f3c9  hv_sock: perf: Allow the socket buffer size options to influence
              the actual socket buffers


> > I guess these sockopts are bypassed by AF_VSOCK because it doesn't use
> > the common skb queuing code in net/core/sock.c:(.  But one day we might
> > migrate to it...
> > 
> > Stefan
> 
> 
> +1, we should really consider to reuse the exist socket mechanism instead of
> re-inventing wheels.

+1, I totally agree. I'll go this way.

Guys, thank you all for your suggestions!