Hi Harry, >I thought I'd save these expensive VM_Exits by using the passthru path. Completely wrong, is it?
It depends on which processor you are using. For example APICv was introduced in IvyBridge which enabled h/w assisted localAPIC rather than using s/w emulated, bhyve supports it on Intel processors. Intel Broadwell introduced PostedInterrupt which enabled interrupt to delivered to guest directly, bypassing hypervisor for passthrough devices. Emulated devices interrupt will still go through hypervisor. You can verify capability using sysctl hw.vmm.vmx. What processor you are using for these performance benchmarking? Can you run a simple experiment, assign pptdev interrupts to core that's not running guest/vcpu? This will reduce #VMEXIT on vcpu which we know is expensive. Regards, Anish On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Harry Schmalzbauer <free...@omnilan.de> wrote: > Hello, > > some might have noticed my numerous posts recently, mainly in > freebsd-net@, but all around the same story – replacing ESXi. So I hope > nobody minds if I ask for help again to alleviate some of my knowledge > deficiencies about PCIePassThrough. > As last resort for special VMs, I always used to have dedicated NICs via > PCIePassThrough. > But with bhyve (besides other undiscovered strange side effects) I don't > understand the results utilizing bhyve-passthru. > > Simple test: Copy iso image from NFSv4 mount via 1GbE (to null). > > Host, using if_em (hartwell): 4-8kirqs/s (8 @mtu 1500), system idle > ~99-100% > Passing this same hartwell devcie to the guest, running the identical > FreeBSD version like the host, I see 2x8kirqs/s, MTU independent, and > only 80%idle, while almost all cycles are spent in Sys (vmm). > Running the same guest in if_bridge(4)-vtnet(4) or vale(4)-vtnet(4) > deliver identical results: About 80% attainable throughput, only 80% > idle cycles. > > So interrupts triggerd by PCI devices, which are controlled via > bhyve-passthru, are as expensive as interrupts triggered by emulated > devices? > I thought I'd save these expensive VM_Exits by using the passthru path. > Completely wrong, is it? > > I haven't ever done authoritative ESXi measures, but I remember that > there was a significant saving using VMDirectPath. Big enough that I > never felt the need for measuring. Is there any implementation > difference? Some kind of intermediate interrupt moderation maybe? > > Thanks for any hints/links, > > -harry > _______________________________________________ > email@example.com mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization- > unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"