RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/3] Provide a zero-copy method on KVMvirtio-net.

[Xin, Xiaohui]

> Michael,
> >>> The idea is simple, just to pin the guest VM user space and then
> >>> let host NIC driver has the chance to directly DMA to it. 
> >>> The patches are based on vhost-net backend driver. We add a device
> >>> which provides proto_ops as sendmsg/recvmsg to vhost-net to
> >>> send/recv directly to/from the NIC driver. KVM guest who use the
> >>> vhost-net backend may bind any ethX interface in the host side to
> >>> get copyless data transfer thru guest virtio-net frontend.
> >>> 
> >>> The scenario is like this:
> >>> 
> >>> The guest virtio-net driver submits multiple requests thru vhost-net
> >>> backend driver to the kernel. And the requests are queued and then
> >>> completed after corresponding actions in h/w are done.
> >>> 
> >>> For read, user space buffers are dispensed to NIC driver for rx when
> >>> a page constructor API is invoked. Means NICs can allocate user buffers
> >>> from a page constructor. We add a hook in netif_receive_skb() function
> >>> to intercept the incoming packets, and notify the zero-copy device.
> >>> 
> >>> For write, the zero-copy deivce may allocates a new host skb and puts
> >>> payload on the skb_shinfo(skb)->frags, and copied the header to skb->data.
> >>> The request remains pending until the skb is transmitted by h/w.
> >>> 
> >>> Here, we have ever considered 2 ways to utilize the page constructor
> >>> API to dispense the user buffers.
> >>> 
> >>> One:	Modify __alloc_skb() function a bit, it can only allocate a 
> >>> 	structure of sk_buff, and the data pointer is pointing to a 
> >>> 	user buffer which is coming from a page constructor API.
> >>> 	Then the shinfo of the skb is also from guest.
> >>> 	When packet is received from hardware, the skb->data is filled
> >>> 	directly by h/w. What we have done is in this way.
> >>> 
> >>> 	Pros:	We can avoid any copy here.
> >>> 	Cons:	Guest virtio-net driver needs to allocate skb as almost
> >>> 		the same method with the host NIC drivers, say the size
> >>> 		of netdev_alloc_skb() and the same reserved space in the
> >>> 		head of skb. Many NIC drivers are the same with guest and
> >>> 		ok for this. But some lastest NIC drivers reserves special
> >>> 		room in skb head. To deal with it, we suggest to provide
> >>> 		a method in guest virtio-net driver to ask for parameter
> >>> 		we interest from the NIC driver when we know which device 
> >>> 		we have bind to do zero-copy. Then we ask guest to do so.
> >>> 		Is that reasonable?
> >>Unfortunately, this would break compatibility with existing virtio.
> >>This also complicates migration.  
>> You mean any modification to the guest virtio-net driver will break the
>> compatibility? We tried to enlarge the virtio_net_config to contains the
>> 2 parameter, and add one VIRTIO_NET_F_PASSTHRU flag, virtionet_probe()
>> will check the feature flag, and get the parameters, then virtio-net driver use
>> it to allocate buffers. How about this?

>This means that we can't, for example, live-migrate between different systems
>without flushing outstanding buffers.

Ok. What we have thought about now is to do something with skb_reserve().
If the device is binded by mp, then skb_reserve() will do nothing with it.

> >>What is the room in skb head used for?
> >I'm not sure, but the latest ixgbe driver does this, it reserves 32 bytes compared to
>> NET_IP_ALIGN.

>Looking at code, this seems to do with alignment - could just be
>a performance optimization.

> >>> Two:	Modify driver to get user buffer allocated from a page constructor
> >>> 	API(to substitute alloc_page()), the user buffer are used as payload
> >>> 	buffers and filled by h/w directly when packet is received. Driver
> >>> 	should associate the pages with skb (skb_shinfo(skb)->frags). For 
> >>> 	the head buffer side, let host allocates skb, and h/w fills it. 
> >>> 	After that, the data filled in host skb header will be copied into
> >>> 	guest header buffer which is submitted together with the payload buffer.
> >>> 
> >>> 	Pros:	We could less care the way how guest or host allocates their
> >>> 		buffers.
> >>> 	Cons:	We still need a bit copy here for the skb header.
> >>> 
> >>> We are not sure which way is the better here. 
> >>The obvious question would be whether you see any speed difference
> >>with the two approaches. If no, then the second approach would be
> >>better.
> 
>> I remember the second approach is a bit slower in 1500MTU. 
>> But we did not tested too much.

>Well, that's an important datapoint. By the way, you'll need
>header copy to activate LRO in host, so that's a good
>reason to go with option 2 as well.


> >>> This is the first thing we want
> >>> to get comments from the community. We wish the modification to the network
> >>> part will be generic which not used by vhost-net backend only, but a user
> >>> application may use it as well when the zero-copy device may provides async
> >>> read/write operations later.
> >>> 
> >>> Please give comments especially for the network part modifications.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> We provide multiple submits and asynchronous notifiicaton to 
> >>>vhost-net too.
> >>> 
> >>> Our goal is to improve the bandwidth and reduce the CPU usage.
> >>> Exact performance data will be provided later. But for simple
> >>> test with netperf, we found bindwidth up and CPU % up too,
> >>> but the bindwidth up ratio is much more than CPU % up ratio.
> >>> 
> >>> What we have not done yet:
> >>> 	packet split support
> 
> >>What does this mean, exactly?
>> We can support 1500MTU, but for jumbo frame, since vhost driver before don't 
> >support mergeable buffer, we cannot try it for multiple sg.

>I do not see why, vhost currently supports 64K buffers with indirect
>descriptors.

The receive_skb() in guest virtio-net driver will merge the multiple sg to skb frags, how can indirect descriptors to that?

>>> A jumbo frame will split 5
>>> frags and hook them once a descriptor, so the user buffer allocation is greatly dependent
>>> on how guest virtio-net drivers submits buffers. We think mergeable buffer is suitable for >>>it. 
> 
> >> 	To support GRO
>>> Actually, I think if the mergeable buffer may get good performance, then GRO is not 
>>> so important then.
> >>And TSO/GSO?
>>> Do we really need them?

>>My guess would be yes. Mergeable buffers is a memory saving
>>optimization, not a performance optimization, I don't see
>>that it can help. And I think you can't solely rely on jumbo frames
>>in hardware, not everyone can enable them.

>Having said that, number one priority is getting decent performance
>out of the driver, in whatever way you find fit. I was just
>suggesting obvious ways to do this.

Thanks.

> >> 	Performance tuning
> >> 
> >> what we have done in v1:
> >> 	polish the RCU usage
> >> 	deal with write logging in asynchroush mode in vhost
> >> 	add notifier block for mp device
> >> 	rename page_ctor to mp_port in netdevice.h to make it looks generic
> >> 	add mp_dev_change_flags() for mp device to change NIC state
> >> 	add CONIFG_VHOST_MPASSTHRU to limit the usage when module is not load
> >> 	a small fix for missing dev_put when fail
> >> 	using dynamic minor instead of static minor number
> >> 	a __KERNEL__ protect to mp_get_sock()
> >> 
> >> what we have done in v2:
> >> 	
> >> 	remove most of the RCU usage, since the ctor pointer is only
> >> 	changed by BIND/UNBIND ioctl, and during that time, NIC will be
> >> 	stopped to get good cleanup(all outstanding requests are finished),
> >> 	so the ctor pointer cannot be raced into wrong situation.
> >> 
> >> 	Remove the struct vhost_notifier with struct kiocb.
> >> 	Let vhost-net backend to alloc/free the kiocb and transfer them
> >> 	via sendmsg/recvmsg.
> >> 
> >> 	use get_user_pages_fast() and set_page_dirty_lock() when read.
> >> 
> >> 	Add some comments for netdev_mp_port_prep() and handle_mpassthru().
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Comments not addressed yet in this time:
> >> 	the async write logging is not satified by vhost-net
> >> 	Qemu needs a sync write
> >> 	a limit for locked pages from get_user_pages_fast()
> >> 	
> >> 		
> >> performance:
> >> 	using netperf with GSO/TSO disabled, 10G NIC, 
> >> 	disabled packet split mode, with raw socket case compared to vhost.
> >> 
> >> 	bindwidth will be from 1.1Gbps to 1.7Gbps
> >> 	CPU % from 120%-140% to 140%-160%
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/