On 04.04.2013, at 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 03:06:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 04.04.2013, at 14:56, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:49:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04.04.2013, at 14:45, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:39:51PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04.04.2013, at 14:38, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:32:08PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04.04.2013, at 14:08, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:57:34PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04.04.2013, at 12:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With KVM, MMIO is much slower than PIO, due to the need to
>>>>>>>>>>> do page walk and emulation. But with EPT, it does not have to be: we
>>>>>>>>>>> know the address from the VMCS so if the address is unique, we can
>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>> up the eventfd directly, bypassing emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Add an interface for userspace to specify this per-address, we can
>>>>>>>>>>> use this e.g. for virtio.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The implementation adds a separate bus internally. This serves two
>>>>>>>>>>> purposes:
>>>>>>>>>>> - minimize overhead for old userspace that does not use PV MMIO
>>>>>>>>>>> - minimize disruption in other code (since we don't know the length,
>>>>>>>>>>> devices on the MMIO bus only get a valid address in write, this
>>>>>>>>>>> way we don't need to touch all devices to teach them handle
>>>>>>>>>>> an dinvalid length)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, this optimization is only supported for EPT on x86
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> silently ignored for NPT and MMU, so everything works correctly but
>>>>>>>>>>> slowly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TODO: NPT, MMU and non x86 architectures.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The idea was suggested by Peter Anvin. Lots of thanks to Gleb for
>>>>>>>>>>> pre-review and suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This still uses page fault intercepts which are orders of magnitudes
>>>>>>>>>> slower than hypercalls. Why don't you just create a PV MMIO
>>>>>>>>>> hypercall that the guest can use to invoke MMIO accesses towards the
>>>>>>>>>> host based on physical addresses with explicit length encodings?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is slower, but not an order of magnitude slower. It become faster
>>>>>>>>> with newer HW.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That way you simplify and speed up all code paths, exceeding the
>>>>>>>>>> speed of PIO exits even. It should also be quite easily portable, as
>>>>>>>>>> all other platforms have hypercalls available as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are trying to avoid PV as much as possible (well this is also PV,
>>>>>>>>> but not guest visible
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, how is this not guest visible? Who sets
>>>>>>>> KVM_IOEVENTFD_FLAG_PV_MMIO? The comment above its definition indicates
>>>>>>>> that the guest does so, so it is guest visible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> QEMU sets it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does QEMU know?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Knows what? When to create such eventfd? virtio device knows.
>>>>
>>>> Where does it know from?
>>>>
>>> It does it always.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * PV_MMIO - Guest can promise us that all accesses touching this
>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>> + * are writes of specified length, starting at the specified address.
>>>>>>>> + * If not - it's a Guest bug.
>>>>>>>> + * Can not be used together with either PIO or DATAMATCH.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Virtio spec will state that access to a kick register needs to be of
>>>>>>> specific length. This is reasonable thing for HW to ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a spec change. So the guest would have to indicate that it
>>>>>> adheres to a newer spec. Thus it's a guest visible change.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is not virtio spec that has kick register in MMIO. The spec is in
>>>>> the works AFAIK. Actually PIO will not be deprecated and my suggestion
>>>>
>>>> So the guest would indicate that it supports a newer revision of the spec
>>>> (in your case, that it supports MMIO). How is that any different from
>>>> exposing that it supports a PV MMIO hcall?
>>>>
>>> Guest will indicate nothing. New driver will use MMIO if PIO is bar is
>>> not configured. All driver will not work for virtio devices with MMIO
>>> bar, but not PIO bar.
>>
>> I can't parse that, sorry :).
>
> It's simple. Driver does iowrite16 or whatever is appropriate for the OS.
> QEMU tells KVM which address driver uses, to make exits faster. This is not
> different from how eventfd works. For example if exits to QEMU suddenly
> become
> very cheap we can remove eventfd completely.
>
>>>
>>>>> is to move to MMIO only when PIO address space is exhausted. For PCI it
>>>>> will be never, for PCI-e it will be after ~16 devices.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, let's go back a step here. Are you actually able to measure any speed
>>>> in performance with this patch applied and without when going through MMIO
>>>> kicks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's the question for MST. I think he did only micro benchmarks till
>>> now and he already posted his result here:
>>>
>>> mmio-wildcard-eventfd:pci-mem 3529
>>> mmio-pv-eventfd:pci-mem 1878
>>> portio-wildcard-eventfd:pci-io 1846
>>>
>>> So the patch speedup mmio by almost 100% and it is almost the same as PIO.
>>
>> Those numbers don't align at all with what I measured.
>
> Yep. But why?
> Could be a different hardware. My laptop is i7, what did you measure on?
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> model : 42
> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz
> stepping : 7
> microcode : 0x28
> cpu MHz : 2801.000
> cache size : 4096 KB
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 16
model : 8
model name : Six-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 8435
stepping : 0
cpu MHz : 800.000
cache size : 512 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 6
core id : 0
cpu cores : 6
apicid : 8
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 5
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov
pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb
rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nopl nonstop_tsc extd_apicid pni
monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a
misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save
pausefilter
bogomips : 5199.87
TLB size : 1024 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate
>
> Or could be different software, this is on top of 3.9.0-rc5, what
> did you try?
3.0 plus kvm-kmod of whatever was current back in autumn :).
>
>> MST, could you please do a real world latency benchmark with virtio-net and
>>
>> * normal ioeventfd
>> * mmio-pv eventfd
>> * hcall eventfd
>
> I can't do this right away, sorry. For MMIO we are discussing the new
> layout on the virtio mailing list, guest and qemu need a patch for this
> too. My hcall patches are stale and would have to be brought up to
> date.
>
>
>> to give us some idea how much performance we would gain from each approach?
>> Thoughput should be completely unaffected anyway, since virtio just
>> coalesces kicks internally.
>
> Latency is dominated by the scheduling latency.
> This means virtio-net is not the best benchmark.
So what is a good benchmark? Is there any difference in speed at all? I
strongly doubt it. One of virtio's main points is to reduce the number of kicks.
>
>> I'm also slightly puzzled why the wildcard eventfd mechanism is so
>> significantly slower, while it was only a few percent on my test system.
>> What are the numbers you're listing above? Cycles? How many cycles do you
>> execute in a second?
>>
>>
>> Alex
>
>
> It's the TSC divided by number of iterations. kvm unittest this value, here's
> what it does (removed some dead code):
>
> #define GOAL (1ull << 30)
>
> do {
> iterations *= 2;
> t1 = rdtsc();
>
> for (i = 0; i < iterations; ++i)
> func();
> t2 = rdtsc();
> } while ((t2 - t1) < GOAL);
> printf("%s %d\n", test->name, (int)((t2 - t1) / iterations));
So it's the number of cycles per run.
That means translated my numbers are:
MMIO: 4307
PIO: 3658
HCALL: 1756
MMIO - PIO = 649
which aligns roughly with your PV MMIO callback.
My MMIO benchmark was to poke the LAPIC version register. That does go through
instruction emulation, no?
Alex
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
