On 2018/3/27 20:49, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> When specifying trans_mod multiple times in a mount,
> it may cause inaccurate refcount of trans module. Also,
> in the error case of option parsing, we should put the
> trans module if we have already got.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu
> ---
> net/9
On 2018/3/28 10:52, cgxu...@gmx.com wrote:
> 在 2018年3月28日，上午10:10，jiangyiwen 写道：
>>
>> On 2018/3/27 20:49, Chengguang Xu wrote:
>>> When specifying trans_mod multiple times in a mount,
>>> it may cause inaccurate refcount of trans module. Also,
>>> in t
On 2018/3/10 4:41, Greg Kurz wrote:
> If it was interrupted by a signal, the 9p client may need to send some
> more requests to the server for cleanup before returning to userspace.
>
> To avoid such a last minute request to be interrupted right away, the
> client memorizes if a signal is pending,
Hi Al,
I totally agree the Greg's suggestion, I think v9fs is the direction
as the VirtFS in the virtualization field, that it still deserves to
be used and developed, so I also suggestion you can apply (or nack)
the patch as v9fs maintainer, I hope you won't refuse.
Thanks,
Yiwen.
On 2018/2/21
On 2018/11/29 22:19, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 01:53:54PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/11/6 11:32, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2018/11/6 上午11:17, jiangyiwen wrote:
>>>> On 2018/11/6 10:41, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>
On 2018/11/30 21:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:10:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2018/11/30 下午8:55, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2018/11/30 下午8:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>If you want to compare it with
>> something that would be TCP or QUIC. Th
On 2018/12/4 9:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:10:58AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/11/30 21:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:10:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2018/11/30 下午8:55, Jas
On 2018/12/4 12:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:21:40AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/12/4 9:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:10:58AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>>>> On 2018/11/30 21:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wro
Now vsock only support send/receive small packet, it can't achieve
high performance. As previous discussed with Jason Wang, I revisit the
idea of vhost-net about mergeable rx buffer and implement the mergeable
rx buffer in vhost-vsock, it can allow big packet to be scattered in
into different buffe
In driver probing, if virtio has VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_MRG_RXBUF feature,
it will fill mergeable rx buffer, support for host send mergeable
rx buffer. It will fill a fixed size(PAGE_SIZE) everytime to
compact with small packet and big packet.
In addition, it also add one optimizations copied from virtio-
When vhost support VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_MRG_RXBUF feature,
it will merge big packet into rx vq.
Signed-off-by: Yiwen Jiang
---
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 111 ++
include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 +
include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 5 ++
3 files
Guest receive mergeable rx buffer, it can merge
scatter rx buffer into a big buffer and then copy
to user space.
In addition, it also use iovec to replace buf in struct
virtio_vsock_pkt, keep tx and rx consistency. The only
difference is now tx still uses a segment of continuous
physical memory to
Since VSOCK already support mergeable rx buffer, so it can
implement the balance with performance and guest memory,
we can increase the sent pkt len to improve performance.
And in order to be compatible with old version, so we still
send max default rx buf size once.
Signed-off-by: Yiwen Jiang
--
Batch sending rx buffer can improve total bandwidth.
Signed-off-by: Yiwen Jiang
---
drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 24 +---
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
index 9600133..a4bf0a1 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/
On 2018/12/12 23:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:25:50PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> Now vsock only support send/receive small packet, it can't achieve
>> high performance. As previous discussed with Jason Wang, I revisit the
>> idea of vh
Hi Michael,
On 2018/12/12 23:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:31:39PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> Guest receive mergeable rx buffer, it can merge
>> scatter rx buffer into a big buffer and then copy
>> to user space.
>>
>> In addition, it
On 2018/12/13 3:08, David Miller wrote:
> From: jiangyiwen
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:28:16 +0800
>
>> +static int fill_mergeable_rx_buff(struct virtio_vsock *vsock,
>> +struct virtqueue *vq)
>> +{
>> +struct page_frag *alloc_frag = &vsock-&g
On 2018/12/12 23:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:29:31PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> When vhost support VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_MRG_RXBUF feature,
>> it will merge big packet into rx vq.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yiwen Jiang
>
> I feel this app
On 2018/12/13 3:09, David Miller wrote:
> From: jiangyiwen
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:29:31 +0800
>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>> b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>> index 1d57ed3..2292f30 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vs
On 2018/12/13 13:59, David Miller wrote:
> From: jiangyiwen
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:11:48 +0800
>
>> I hope Host can fill fewer bytes into rx virtqueue, so
>> I keep structure virtio_vsock_mrg_rxbuf_hdr one byte
>> alignment.
>
> The question is if this
On 2018/12/13 23:17, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:35:27PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> Batch sending rx buffer can improve total bandwidth.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yiwen Jiang
>> ---
>
> Please send patches with git-send-email --thread --no-ch
On 2018/12/13 22:48, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:08:04AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/12/12 23:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:29:31PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>>>> When vhost support VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_M
On 2018/12/13 22:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:11:48AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/12/13 3:09, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: jiangyiwen
>>> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:29:31 +0800
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi
On 2018/12/13 23:49, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:08:04AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> On 2018/12/12 23:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:29:31PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>>>> When vhost support VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_MRG_RXB
On 2018/12/13 22:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:38:09AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> On 2018/12/12 23:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:31:39PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>>>> Guest
On 2018/12/14 0:20, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:31:39PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> +static struct virtio_vsock_pkt *receive_mergeable(struct virtqueue *vq,
>> +struct virtio_vsock *vsock, unsigned int *total_len)
>> +{
>> +s
On 2018/12/14 0:34, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:25:50PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> Now vsock only support send/receive small packet, it can't achieve
>> high performance. As previous discussed with Jason Wang, I revisit the
>> idea of vhost-net
On 2018/12/12 23:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:25:50PM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
>> Now vsock only support send/receive small packet, it can't achieve
>> high performance. As previous discussed with Jason Wang, I revisit the
>> idea of vh
28 matches
Mail list logo
