Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:02:17 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@amazon.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "stsp2@yandex.ru" <stsp2@yandex.ru>,
        "oxffffaa@gmail.com" <oxffffaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 00/19] virtio/vsock: introduce SOCK_SEQPACKET
 support
Message-ID: <20210422100217.jmpgevtrukqyukfo@steredhat>
References: <20210413123954.3396314-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
 <20210421095213.25hnfi2th7gzyzt2@steredhat>
 <2c3d0749-0f41-e064-0153-b6130268add2@kaspersky.com>
 <20210422084638.bvblk33b4oi6cec6@steredhat>
 <bfefdd94-a84f-8bed-331e-274654a7426f@kaspersky.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bfefdd94-a84f-8bed-331e-274654a7426f@kaspersky.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:40:17PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>On 22.04.2021 11:46, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:06:28PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> Thank You, i'll prepare next version. Main question is: does this
>>> approach(no SEQ_BEGIN, SEQ_END, 'msg_len' and 'msg_id') considered
>>> good? In this case it will be easier to prepare final version, because
>>> is smaller and more simple than previous logic. Also patch to spec
>>> will be smaller.
>> Yes, it's definitely much better than before.
>>
>> The only problem I see is that we add some overhead per fragment
>> (header). We could solve that with the mergeable buffers that Jiang is
>> considering for DGRAM.
>
>If we are talking about receive, i think, i can reuse merge logic for

Yep, for TX the guest can potentially enqueue a big buffer.
Maybe it's still worth keeping a maximum size and fragmenting as we do 
now.

>
>stream sockets, the only difference is that buffers are mergeable
>until previous EOR(e.g. previous message) bit is found in rx queue.
>

I got a little lost.
Can you elaborate more?

Thanks,
Stefano