lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 08/32] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 03:19:47PM +0800, Dingji Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I hope it is appropriate to ask these questions here:
>
> I'm wondering if there are any performance comparisons available between
> TDX guests and VMX guests. The #VE processing adds non-trivial overhead
> to various VM exits, but how does it affect the performance of
> real-world applications? Existing patches have listed alternative
> methods to avoid the #VE in the first place, but there are trade-offs
> (e.g., bloated code, reduced generality). Besides, how much does the
> time spent in the TDX module affect VM exits / applications? (I guess
> the TDX module has a low overhead when compared to the #VE processing,
> but there is no public data.) Maybe some performance data can help make
> better trade-offs?

This is basic enabling of TDX guest support. The goal is to make TDX guest
functional. Yes, #VE handling adds non-trivial overhead and we have plan
to migrate it: there are patches in the queue that help to avoid bulk of
#VE, like replacing #VE-based MMIO with direct hypercalls. TDX will still
have performance penalty over plain VMX no matter what, but we aim to
minimize it.

I don't have any performance numbers to share at the moment.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-22 12:11    [W:0.064 / U:2.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site