Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/9p: increase default msize to 128k
From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Date: 2021-09-05 21:48:32
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 03:33:11PM +0200:
quoted
Subject: [PATCH] net/9p: increase tcp max msize to 1MBYes, makes sense. Is the TCP transport driver of the Linux 9p client somewhat equally mature to the virtio transport driver? Because I still have macOS support for 9p in QEMU on my TODO list and accordingly a decision for a specific transport type for macOS will be needed.
I'd say it should be just about as stable as virtio.. It's definitely getting a lot of tests like syzcaller as it's easy to open an arbitrary fd and pass that to kernel for fuzzing. Performance-wise you won't have zero-copy, and the monolitic memory blocks requirement is the same, so it won't be as good as virtio but it can probably be used. The problem will more be one of setting -- for user networking we can always use qemu's networking implementation, but for passthrough or tap qemu won't easily be discoverable from the VM, I'm not sure about that. Does AF_VSOCK work on macos? that could probably easily be added to trans_fd...
For the next series mentioned by me (getting rid of the 512k msize capping) I first need to readup on the Linux kernel code. According to the discussion we already had about that issue, the reason for that capping was that the amount of virtio elements is currently hard coded in the Linux client's virtio transport: On Samstag, 27. Februar 2021 01:03:40 CEST Dominique Martinet wrote:quoted
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:49:12PM +0100:quoted
Right now the client uses a hard coded amount of 128 elements. So what about replacing VIRTQUEUE_NUM by a variable which is initialized with a value according to the user's requested 'msize' option at init time? According to the virtio specs the max. amount of elements in a virtqueue is 32768. So 32768 * 4k = 128M as new upper limit would already be a significant improvement and would not require too many changes to the client code, right?The current code inits the chan->sg at probe time (when driver is loader) and not mount time, and it is currently embedded in the chan struct, so that would need allocating at mount time (p9_client_create ; either resizing if required or not sharing) but it doesn't sound too intrusive yes. I don't see more adherenences to VIRTQUEUE_NUM that would hurt trying.So probably as a first step I would only re-allocate the virtio elements according to the user supplied (i.e. large) 'msize' value if the 9p driver is not in use at that point, and stick to capping otherwise. That should probably be fine for many users and would avoid need for some synchronization measures and the traps it might bring. But again, I still need to read more of the Linux client code first.
Right, looking at it again p9_virtio_create would already allow that so you just need to pick the most appropriate channel or create a new one if required, synchronization shouldn't be too much of a problem. The 9p code is sometimes impressive in its foresight ;)
BTW just in case I have not mentioned it before: there are some developer docs for the QEMU 9p server implementation now: https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/9p
Wow, that's an impressive wiki page. I've never been good with documentation (be it writing or using it), but hopefully it'll help people make the first step -- good work! -- Dominique