Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] kvm: level irqfd and new eoifd

[Alex Williamson]

On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 11:33 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 07:19 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 12:35 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2012 10:57 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > We still have classic KVM device assignment to provide fast-path INTx.
> >> >> > But if we want to replace it midterm, I think it's necessary for VFIO to
> >> >> > be able to provide such a path as well.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I would like VFIO to have no regressions vs. kvm device assignment,
> >> >> except perhaps in uncommon corner cases.  So I agree.
> >> > 
> >> > I ran a few TCP_RR netperf tests forcing a 1Gb tg3 nic to use INTx.
> >> > Without irqchip support vfio gets a bit more than 60% of KVM device
> >> > assignment.  That's a little bit of an unfair comparison since it's more
> >> > than just the I/O path.  With the proposed interfaces here, enabling
> >> > irqchip, vfio is within 10% of KVM device assignment for INTx.  For MSI,
> >> > I can actually make vfio come out more than 30% better than KVM device
> >> > assignment if I send the eventfd from the hard irq handler.  Using a
> >> > threaded handler as the code currently does, vfio is still behind KVM.
> >> > It's hard to beat a direct call chain.
> >> 
> >> We can have a direct call chain with vfio too, using a custom eventfd
> >> poll function, no?  Assuming we set up a fast path for unicast msi.
> > 
> > You'll have to help me out a little, eventfd_signal walks the wait_queue
> > and calls each function.  On the injection path that includes
> > irqfd_wakeup.  
> 
> This is what I meant, except I forgot that we already do direct path for
> MSI.

Ok, vfio now does it for the unmask irqfd-line interface too.  Except
when we re-inject from eoifd we have to do the eventfd_signal from a
work queue as we can't have nested eventfd_signals.  We probably need to
do some benchmarks to see if that re-injection path saves us anything vs
letting hardware fire again.

> > For an MSI that seems to already provide direct
> > injection.  
> 
> Ugh, even for a broadcast MSI into 254 vcpu guests.  That's going to be
> one slow interrupt.
> 
> > For level we'll schedule_work, so that explains the overhead
> > in that path, but it's not too dissimilar to a a threaded irq.  vfio
> > does something very similar, so there's a schedule_work both on inject
> > and on eoi.  I'll have to check whether anything prevents the unmask
> > from the wait_queue function in vfio, that could be a significant chunk
> > of the gap.  Where's the custom poll function come into play?  Thanks,
> 
> So I don't understand where the gap comes from.  The number of context
> switches for kvm and vfio is the same, as long as both use MSI (and
> either both use threaded irq or both don't).

Right, we're not exactly apples to apples yet.  Using threaded
interrupts and work queue injection, vfio is a little slower.  There's
an extra work queue in that path vs kvm though.  Using non-threaded
interrupts and direct injection, vfio is faster.  Once kvm moves to
non-threaded interrupt handling, I expect we'll be pretty similar.  My
benchmarks are just rough estimates at this point as I'm both trying to
work out lockdep and get some ballpark performance comparison.  Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/