Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] exec: alternative fix for master abort woes

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 06:29:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 07/11/2013 17:47, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > That's on kvm with 52 bit address.
> > But where I would be concerned is systems with e.g. 36 bit address
> > space where we are doubling the cost of the lookup.
> > E.g. try i386 and not x86_64.
> 
> Tried now...
> 
>                 P_L2_LEVELS pre-patch           post-patch
>    i386         3                               6
>    x86_64       4                               6
> 
> I timed the inl_from_qemu test of vmexit.flat with both KVM and TCG.  With
> TCG there's indeed a visible penalty of 20 cycles for i386 and 10 for x86_64
> (you can extrapolate to 30 cycles for TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS=32 targets).

So how did you measure this exactly?

> These can be more or less entirely ascribed to phys_page_find:
> 
>                                  TCG             |      KVM
>                            pre-patch  post-patch |  pre-patch   post-patch
> phys_page_find(i386)          13%         25%    |     0.6%         1%
> inl_from_qemu cycles(i386)    153         173    |   ~12000      ~12000
> phys_page_find(x86_64)        18%         25%    |     0.8%         1%
> inl_from_qemu cycles(x86_64)  163         173    |   ~12000      ~12000
> 
> Thus this patch costs 0.4% in the worst case for KVM, 12% in the worst case
> for TCG.  The cycle breakdown is:
> 
>     60 phys_page_find
>     28 access_with_adjusted_size
>     24 address_space_translate_internal
>     20 address_space_rw
>     13 io_mem_read
>     11 address_space_translate
>      9 memory_region_read_accessor
>      6 memory_region_access_valid
>      4 helper_inl
>      4 memory_access_size
>      3 cpu_inl
> 
> (This run reported 177 cycles per access; the total is 182 due to rounding).
> It is probably possible to shave at least 10 cycles from the functions below,
> or to make the depth of the tree dynamic so that you would save even more
> compared to 1.6.0.
> 
> Also, compiling with "-fstack-protector" instead of "-fstack-protector-all",
> as suggested a while ago by rth, is already giving a savings of 20 cycles.
> 
> And of course, if this were a realistic test, KVM's 60x penalty would
> be a severe problem---but it isn't, because this is not a realistic setting.
> 
> Paolo