On 2019/7/10 下午11:37, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
as Jason suggested some months ago, I looked better at the virtio-net driver to
understand if we can reuse some parts also in the virtio-vsock driver, since we
have similar challenges (mergeable buffers, page allocation, small
Initially, I would add the skbuff in the virtio-vsock in order to re-use
Yes, that will be a good step.
Then I would move receive_[small, big, mergeable]() and
add_recvbuf_[small, big, mergeable]() outside of virtio-net driver, in order to
call them also from virtio-vsock. I need to do some refactoring (e.g. leave the
XDP part on the virtio-net driver), but I think it is feasible.
The idea is to create a virtio-skb.[h,c] where put these functions and a new
object where stores some attributes needed (e.g. hdr_len ) and status (e.g.
some fields of struct receive_queue).
My understanding is we could be more ambitious here. Do you see any
blocker for reusing virtio-net directly? It's better to reuse not only
the functions but also the logic like NAPI to avoid re-inventing
something buggy and duplicated.
This is an idea of virtio-skb.h that
I have in mind:
What fields do you want to store in virtskb? It looks to be exist
sk_buff is flexible enough to us?
struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_small(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_big(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
struct sk_buff *virtskb_receive_mergeable(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
int virtskb_add_recvbuf_small(struct virtskb*vs, ...);
int virtskb_add_recvbuf_big(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
int virtskb_add_recvbuf_mergeable(struct virtskb *vs, ...);
For the Guest->Host path it should be easier, so maybe I can add a
"virtskb_send(struct virtskb *vs, struct sk_buff *skb)" with a part of the code
I may miss something, but I don't see any thing that prevents us from
using xmit_skb() directly.
Let me know if you have in mind better names or if I should put these function
in another place.
I would like to leave the control part completely separate, so, for example,
the two drivers will negotiate the features independently and they will call
the right virtskb_receive_*() function based on the negotiation.
If it's one the issue of negotiation, we can simply change the
virtnet_probe() to deal with different devices.
I already started to work on it, but before to do more steps and send an RFC
patch, I would like to hear your opinion.
Do you think that makes sense?
Do you see any issue or a better solution?
I still think we need to seek a way of adding some codes on virtio-net.c
directly if there's no huge different in the processing of TX/RX. That
would save us a lot time.
Thanks in advance,
Virtualization mailing list