From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [RFC] Discuss about an new idea "Vsock over Virtio-net" Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:40:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20181130083540-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> <20181130075134-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <55352308-9ceb-413e-44f6-e3dfd8f642cc@redhat.com> <27cd8ac6-e892-cfaa-cd39-74f39b452681@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: jiangyiwen , stefanha@redhat.com, stefanha@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jason Wang Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54328 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726521AbeLAAtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:49:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27cd8ac6-e892-cfaa-cd39-74f39b452681@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.  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? > > > > > > > > > > No, my question is why not do vsock through virtio-net. > > > > Thanks > > > > Just to clarify, it's not about vosck over ethernet, and it's not about > inventing new features or APIs. It's probably something like: > > - Let virtio-net driver probe vsock device and do vosck specific things if > needed to share as much codes. > > - A new kind of sockfd (which is vsock based) for vhost-net for it to do > vsock specific things (hopefully it can be transparent). > > The change should be totally transparent to userspace applications. > > Thanks Which code is duplicated between virtio vsock and virtio net right now? -- MST