From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Discuss about an new idea "Vsock over Virtio-net"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:52:51 -0500
Message-ID: <20181130075134-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <5BECEE53.7090408@huawei.com>
 <20181115015547-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <61d57505-7ff6-23c6-d26c-6a0062e08445@redhat.com>
 <20181129085049-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <7e78fc3d-0d5a-090f-476d-03ad490ff8a2@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@huawei.com>, stefanha@redhat.com,
        stefanha@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34322 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726512AbeLAACI (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:08 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7e78fc3d-0d5a-090f-476d-03ad490ff8a2@redhat.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:45:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2018/11/29 下午10:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:24:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018/11/15 下午3:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:56:03AM +0800, jiangyiwen wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over Virtio-net".
> > > > > This idea has two advantages:
> > > > > First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like batching,
> > > > > mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue, etc.
> > > > > Second, it can reduce many duplicate codes and make it easy to be
> > > > > maintained.
> > > > I'm not sure I get the motivation. Which features of
> > > > virtio net are relevant to vsock?
> > > 
> > > Vsock is just a L2 (and above) protocol from the view of the device.
> > I don't believe so. I think virtio-vsock operates at a transport level.
> > There is in theory a bit of network level but we don't really implement
> > it as it's only host to guest.  I am not aware of any data link
> > functionality n virtio-vsock. virtio-vsock provides services such as
> > connection-oriented communication, reliability, flow control and
> > multiplexing.
> 
> 
> Ok, consider it doesn't implement L2, it's pretty fit for virtio-net I
> believe?
> 
> 
> > 
> > > So I
> > > think we should answer the question why we need two different paths for
> > > networking traffic? Or what is the fundamental reason that makes vsock does
> > > not go for virtio-net?
> > So virtio-vsock ensures reliability.
> 
> 
> It's done at the level of protocol instead of virtio transport or virtio
> device.
> 
> 
> >   If you want to compare it with
> > something that would be TCP or QUIC.  The fundamental difference between
> > virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment.
> > So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to
> > discard any unacked data.
> 
> 
> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to device
> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
> 
> 
> Thanks

Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
on top of virtio-net?


> 
> > 
> > 
> > > I agree they could be different type of devices but codes could be shared in
> > > both guest and host (or even qemu) for not duplicating features(bugs).
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > The ones that you mention
> > > > all seem to be mostly of use to the networking stack.
> > > > 
> > > >