lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] kvm: add PV MMIO EVENTFD
From
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 04:32:01PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> >> >> 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?
>> >
>> > E.g. ping pong stress will do but need to look at CPU utilization,
>> > that's what is affected, not latency.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > For this stage of the project I think microbenchmarks are more appropriate.
>> > Doubling the price of exit is likely to be measureable. 30 cycles likely
>> > not ...
>> >
>> I don't quite understand this point here. If we don't have anything
>> real-world where we can measure a decent difference, then why are we
>> doing this? I would agree with Alex that the three test scenarios
>> proposed by him should be tried out before adding this complexity,
>> measured in CPU utilization or latency as you wish.
>
> Sure, plan to do real world benchmarks for PV MMIO versus PIO as well.
> I don't see why I should bother implementing hypercalls given that the
> kvm maintainer says they won't be merged.
>

the implementation effort to simply measure the hypercall performance
should be minimal, no? If we can measure a true difference in
performance, I'm sure we can revisit the issue of what will be merged
and what won't be, but until we have those numbers it's all
speculation.

>> FWIW, ARM always uses MMIO and provides hardware decoding of all sane
>> (not user register-writeback) instruction, but the hypercall vs. mmio
>> looks like this:
>>
>> hvc: 4,917
>> mmio_kernel: 6,248
>
> So 20% difference? That's not far from what happens on my intel laptop:
> vmcall 1519
> outl_to_kernel 1745
> 10% difference here.
>
>>
>> But I doubt that an hvc wrapper around mmio decoding would take care
>> of all this difference, because the mmio operation needs to do other
>> work not realated to emulating the instruction in software, which
>> you'd have to do for an hvc anyway (populate kvm_mmio structure etc.)
>>
>
> Instead of speculating, someone with relevant hardware
> could just try this, but kvm unittest doesn't seem to have arm support
> at the moment. Anyone working on this?
>
We have a branch called kvm-selftest that replicates much of the
functionality, which is what I run to get these measurements. I can
port it over to unittest at some point, but I'm not active working on
that.

I can measure it, but we have bigger fish to fry on the ARM side right
now, so it'll be a while until I get to that.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-07 23:41    [W:0.822 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site