Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS
> requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the
> performance of such a setup.
> 
> Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by
> 121% in basic testing.
> 
> Tested as follows.
> 
> Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock redirector -> host vsock
>        server
> Threads: 1
> Payload: 64k
> No sockmap:
> - 76.3 MB/s
> - The guest vsock redirector was
>   "socat VSOCK-CONNECT:2:1234 UNIX-RECV:/path/to/sock"
> Using sockmap (this patch):
> - 168.8 MB/s (+121%)
> - The guest redirector was a simple sockmap echo server,
>   redirecting unix ingress to vsock 2:1234 egress.
> - Same sender and server programs
> 
> *Note: these numbers are from RFC v1
> 
> Only the virtio transport has been tested. The loopback transport was
> used in writing bpf/selftests, but not thoroughly tested otherwise.
> 
> This series requires the skb patch.

Appears reasonable to me although I didn't review internals of all
the af_vsock stuff. I see it got merged great.

One nit, I have a series coming shortly to pull the tests out of
the sockmap_listen and into a sockmap_vsock because I don't think they
belong in _listen but that is just a refactor.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 06:06:10PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>Bobby Eshleman wrote:
>> We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS
>> requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the
>> performance of such a setup.
>>
>> Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by
>> 121% in basic testing.
>>
>> Tested as follows.
>>
>> Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock redirector -> host vsock
>>        server
>> Threads: 1
>> Payload: 64k
>> No sockmap:
>> - 76.3 MB/s
>> - The guest vsock redirector was
>>   "socat VSOCK-CONNECT:2:1234 UNIX-RECV:/path/to/sock"
>> Using sockmap (this patch):
>> - 168.8 MB/s (+121%)
>> - The guest redirector was a simple sockmap echo server,
>>   redirecting unix ingress to vsock 2:1234 egress.
>> - Same sender and server programs
>>
>> *Note: these numbers are from RFC v1
>>
>> Only the virtio transport has been tested. The loopback transport was
>> used in writing bpf/selftests, but not thoroughly tested otherwise.
>>
>> This series requires the skb patch.
>
>Appears reasonable to me although I didn't review internals of all
>the af_vsock stuff. I see it got merged great.

Thanks for checking!

>
>One nit, I have a series coming shortly to pull the tests out of
>the sockmap_listen and into a sockmap_vsock because I don't think they
>belong in _listen but that is just a refactor.
>

LGTM!

Thanks,
Stefano