Re: [PATCH RFC] vhost: basic device IOTLB support

[Yang Zhang]

On 2016/1/4 14:22, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 09:39 AM, Yang Zhang wrote:
> > On 2015/12/31 15:13, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > This patch tries to implement an device IOTLB for vhost. This could be
> > > used with for co-operation with userspace(qemu) implementation of
> > > iommu for a secure DMA environment in guest.
> > >
> > > The idea is simple. When vhost meets an IOTLB miss, it will request
> > > the assistance of userspace to do the translation, this is done
> > > through:
> > >
> > > - Fill the translation request in a preset userspace address (This
> > >     address is set through ioctl VHOST_SET_IOTLB_REQUEST_ENTRY).
> > > - Notify userspace through eventfd (This eventfd was set through ioctl
> > >     VHOST_SET_IOTLB_FD).
> > >
> > > When userspace finishes the translation, it will update the vhost
> > > IOTLB through VHOST_UPDATE_IOTLB ioctl. Userspace is also in charge of
> > > snooping the IOTLB invalidation of IOMMU IOTLB and use
> > > VHOST_UPDATE_IOTLB to invalidate the possible entry in vhost.
> >
> > Is there any performance data shows the difference with IOTLB supporting?
>
> Basic testing show it was slower than without IOTLB.
>
> > I doubt we may see performance decrease since the flush code path is
> > longer than before.
>
> Yes, it also depend on the TLB hit rate.
>
> If lots of dynamic mappings and unmappings are used in guest (e.g normal
> Linux driver). This method should be much more slower since:
>
> - lots of invalidation and its path is slow.
> - the hit rate is low and the high price of userspace assisted address
> translation.
> - limitation of userspace IOMMU/IOTLB implementation (qemu's vtd
> emulation simply empty all entries when it's full).
>
> Another method is to implement kernel IOMMU (e.g vtd). But I'm not sure
> vhost is the best place to do this, since vhost should be architecture
> independent. Maybe we'd better to do it in kvm or have a pv IOMMU
> implementation in vhost.

Actually, i have the kernel IOMMU(virtual vtd) patch which can pass 
though the physical device to L2 guest on hand. But it is just a draft 
patch which was written several years ago. If there is real requirement 
for it, I can rebase it and send out it for review.

> Another side, if fixed mappings were used in guest, (e.g dpdk in guest).
> We have the possibility to have 100% hit rate with almost no
> invalidation, the performance penalty should be ignorable, this should
> be the main use case for this patch.
>
> The patch is just a prototype for discussion. Any other ideas are welcomed.
>
> Thanks


--
best regards
yang
--
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/