Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02/06/2012 11:41 AM, Rob Earhart wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On 02/03/2012 12:13 AM, Rob Earhart wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:avi@xxxxxxxxxx>>  wrote:

     The kvm api has been accumulating cruft for several years now.
      This is
     due to feature creep, fixing mistakes, experience gained by the
     maintainers and developers on how to do things, ports to new
     architectures, and simply as a side effect of a code base that is
     developed slowly and incrementally.

     While I don't think we can justify a complete revamp of the API
     now, I'm
     writing this as a thought experiment to see where a from-scratch
     API can
     take us.  Of course, if we do implement this, the new and old APIs
     will
     have to be supported side by side for several years.

     Syscalls
     --------
     kvm currently uses the much-loved ioctl() system call as its entry
     point.  While this made it easy to add kvm to the kernel
     unintrusively,
     it does have downsides:

     - overhead in the entry path, for the ioctl dispatch path and vcpu
     mutex
     (low but measurable)
     - semantic mismatch: kvm really wants a vcpu to be tied to a
     thread, and
     a vm to be tied to an mm_struct, but the current API ties them to file
     descriptors, which can move between threads and processes.  We check
     that they don't, but we don't want to.

     Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones:

     - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need
     several
     - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel
     code
     - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to
     mm_struct

     Syscalls that operate on the entire guest will pick it up implicitly
     from the mm_struct, and syscalls that operate on a vcpu will pick
     it up
     from current.


<snipped>

I like the ioctl() interface.  If the overhead matters in your hot path,

I can't say that it's a pressing problem, but it's not negligible.

I suspect you're doing it wrong;

What am I doing wrong?

"You the vmm" not "you the KVM maintainer" :-)

To be a little more precise: If a VCPU thread is going all the way out
to host usermode in its hot path, that's probably a performance
problem regardless of how fast you make the transitions between host
user and host kernel.

That's why ioctl() doesn't bother me.  I think it'd be more useful to
focus on mechanisms which don't require the VCPU thread to exit at all
in its hot paths, so the overhead of the ioctl() really becomes lost
in the noise.  irq fds and ioevent fds are great for that, and I
really like your MMIO-over-socketpair idea.

I'm not so sure. ioeventfds and a future mmio-over-socketpair have to put the kthread to sleep while it waits for the other end to process it. This is effectively equivalent to a heavy weight exit. The difference in cost is dropping to userspace which is really neglible these days (< 100 cycles).

There is some fast-path trickery to avoid heavy weight exits but this presents the same basic problem of having to put all the device model stuff in the kernel.

ioeventfd to userspace is almost certainly worse for performance. And Avi mentioned, you can emulate this behavior yourself in userspace if so inclined.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux