On 01/21/2011 03:48 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 06:23:36PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/20/2011 10:07 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:43:57AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/20/2011 09:35 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
When MSI is off, each interrupt needs to be bounced through the io
thread when it's set/cleared, so vhost-net causes more context switches and
higher CPU utilization than userspace virtio which handles networking in
the same thread.
We'll need to fix this by adding level irq support in kvm irqfd,
for now disable vhost-net in these configurations.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
I actually think this should be a terminal error. The user asks for
vhost-net, if we cannot enable it, we should exit.
Or we should warn the user that they should expect bad performance.
Silently doing something that the user has explicitly asked us not
to do is not a good behavior.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
The issue is that user has no control of the guest, and can not know
whether the guest enables MSI. So what you ask for will just make
some guests fail, and others fail sometimes.
The user also has no way to know that version X of kvm does not expose a
way to inject level interrupts with irqfd.
We could have *another* flag that says "use vhost where it helps" but
then I think this is what everyone wants to do, anyway, and libvirt
already sets vhost=on so I prefer redefining the meaning of an existing
flag.
In the very least, there needs to be a vhost=force.
Having some sort of friendly default policy is fine but we need to
provide a mechanism for a user to have the final say. If you want
to redefine vhost=on to really mean, use the friendly default,
that's fine by me, but only if the vhost=force option exists.
OK, I will add that, probably as a separate flag as vhost
is a boolean. This will get worse performance but it will be what the
user asked for.
I actually would think libvirt would want to use vhost=force.
Debugging with vhost=on is going to be a royal pain in the ass if a
user reports bad performance. Given the libvirt XML, you can't
actually tell from the guest and the XML whether or not vhost was
actually in use or not.
Yes you can: check MSI enabled in the guest, if it is -
check vhost enabled in the XML. Not that bad at all, is it?
Until you automatically detect level triggered interrupt support for
irqfd. This means it's also dependent on a kernel feature too.
Is there any way to tell in QEMU that vhost was silently disabled?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
We get worse performance without MSI anyway, how is this different?
Maybe this is best handled by a documentation update?
We always said:
" use vhost=on to enable experimental in kernel accelerator\n"
note 'enable' not 'require'. This is similar to how we specify
nvectors : you can not make guest use the feature.
How about this:
diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx
index 898561d..3c937c1 100644
--- a/qemu-options.hx
+++ b/qemu-options.hx
@@ -1061,6 +1061,7 @@ DEF("net", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_net,
" use vnet_hdr=off to avoid enabling the IFF_VNET_HDR tap flag\n"
" use vnet_hdr=on to make the lack of IFF_VNET_HDR support an error condition\n"
" use vhost=on to enable experimental in kernel accelerator\n"
+ " (note: vhost=on has no effect unless guest uses MSI-X)\n"
" use 'vhostfd=h' to connect to an already opened vhost net device\n"
#endif
"-net socket[,vlan=n][,name=str][,fd=h][,listen=[host]:port][,connect=host:port]\n"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
