Re: [PATCH vfio 11/11] vfio/virtio: Introduce a vfio driver over virtio devices

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


On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:44:50PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 01:21:26PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Yea it's very useful - it's also useful for vdpa whether this patchset
> > goes in or not.  At some level, if vdpa can't keep up then maybe going
> > the vfio route is justified. I'm not sure why didn't anyone fix iommufd
> > yet - looks like a small amount of work. I'll see if I can address it
> > quickly because we already have virtio accelerators under vdpa and it
> > seems confusing to people to use vdpa for some and vfio for others, with
> > overlapping but slightly incompatible functionality.  I'll get back next
> > week, in either case. I am however genuinely curious whether all the new
> > functionality is actually useful for these legacy guests.
> It doesn't have much to do with the guests - this is new hypervisor
> functionality to make the hypervisor do more things. This stuff can
> still work with old VMs.
> > > > Another question I'm interested in is whether there's actually a
> > > > performance benefit to using this as compared to just software
> > > > vhost. I note there's a VM exit on each IO access, so ... perhaps?
> > > > Would be nice to see some numbers.
> > > 
> > > At least a single trap compared with an entire per-packet SW flow
> > > undoubtably uses alot less CPU power in the hypervisor.
> >
> > Something like the shadow vq thing will be more or less equivalent
> > then?
> Huh? It still has the entire netdev stack to go through on every
> packet before it reaches the real virtio device.

No - shadow vq just tweaks the descriptor and forwards it to
the modern vdpa hardware. No net stack involved.

> > That's upstream in qemu and needs no hardware support. Worth comparing
> > against.  Anyway, there's presumably actual hardware this was tested
> > with, so why guess? Just test and post numbers.
> Our prior benchmarking put our VPDA/VFIO solutions at something like
> 2x-3x improvement over the qemu SW path it replaces.
> Parav said 10% is lost, so 10% of 3x is still 3x better :)
> I thought we all agreed on this when vdpa was created in the first
> place, the all SW path was hopeless to get high performance out of?
> Jason

That's not what I'm asking about though - not what shadow vq does,
shadow vq is a vdpa feature.

Virtualization mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux