Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 14:10:08 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ram Muthiah <rammuthiah@google.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, jiang.wang@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio/vsock: Make vsock virtio packet buff size
 configurable
Message-ID: <20221212131008.aeui7ahq2jp4j33r@sgarzare-redhat>
References: <20210721143001.182009-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20210722125519.jzs7crke7yqfh73e@steredhat>
 <Y5OQ8jQsK2Dz8tPy@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5OQ8jQsK2Dz8tPy@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 07:48:02PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 02:55:19PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> >
>> > +uint virtio_transport_max_vsock_pkt_buf_size = 1024 * 64;
>> > +module_param(virtio_transport_max_vsock_pkt_buf_size, uint, 0444);
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_transport_max_vsock_pkt_buf_size);
>> > +
>
>I'm interested on this functionality, so I could take this on.

Great!
We are changing the packet handling using sk_buff [1], so I think it's 
better to rebase on that work that should be merged in net-next after 
the current merge window will close.

>
>>
>> Maybe better to add an entry under sysfs similar to what Jiang proposed
>> here:
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2021-June/054769.html
>
>Having a look at Jiang's RFC patch it seems the proposed sysfs node
>hangs off from the main kernel object e.g. /sys/kernel. So I wonder if
>there is a more appropriate parent for this knob?

Agree, what about /sys/devices ?
I would take a closer look at what is recommend in this case.

>
>Also, I noticed that Ram's patch here is using read-only permissions for
>the module parameter and switching to sysfs would mean opening this knob
>up to be dynamically configured? I'd need to be careful here.
>

True, but even if it's changed while we're running, I don't think it's a 
big problem.

Maybe the problem here would be the allocation of RX buffers made during 
the probe. Could this be a good reason to use a module parameter?

Thanks,
Stefano

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221202173520.10428-1-bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com/