qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KQEMU code organization
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:02:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4843B711.7090304@bellard.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4843299D.6050902@codemonkey.ws>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>  
>>> [...]
>>> FWIW, the l1_phys_map table is a current hurdle in getting 
>>> performance. When we use proper accessors to access the virtio_ring, 
>>> we end up taking
>>> a significant performance hit (around 20% on iperf).  I have some simple
>>> patches that implement a page_desc cache that cache the RAM regions in a
>>> linear array.  That helps get most of it back.
>>>
>>> I'd really like to remove the l1_phys_map entirely and replace it with a
>>> sorted list of regions.  I think this would have an overall performance
>>> improvement since its much more cache friendly.  One thing keeping this
>>> from happening is the fact that the data structure is passed up to the
>>> kernel for kqemu.  Eliminating that dependency would be a very good 
>>> thing!
>>>     
>>
>> If the l1_phys_map is a performance bottleneck it means that the
>> internals of QEMU are not properly used. In QEMU/kqemu, it is not
>> accessed to do I/Os : a cache is used thru tlb_table[]. I don't see why
>> KVM cannot use a similar system.
>>   
> 
> This is for device emulation.  KVM doesn't use l1_phys_map() for things 
> like shadow page table accesses.
> 
> In the device emulation, we're currently using stl_phys() and friends.  
> This goes through a full lookup in l1_phys_map.
> 
> Looking at other devices, some use phys_ram_base + PA and stl_raw() 
> which is broken but faster.  A few places call 
> cpu_get_physical_page_desc(), then use phys_ram_base and stl_raw().  
> This is okay but it still requires at least one l1_phys_map lookup per 
> operation in the device (packet receive, io notification, etc.).  I 
> don't think that's going to help much because in our fast paths, we're 
> only doing 2 or 3 stl_phys() operations.
> 
> At least on x86, there are very few regions of RAM.  That makes it very 
> easy to cache.  A TLB style cache seems wrong to me because there are so 
> few RAM regions.  I don't see a better way to do this with the existing 
> APIs.

I see your point. st/ldx_phys() were never optimized in fact.

A first solution would be to use a cache similar to the TLBs. It has the 
advantage is being quite generic and fast. Another solution would be to 
compute a few intervals with are tested before the generic case. These 
intervals would correspond to the main RAM area and would be updated 
each time a new device region is registered.

Does your remark implies that KVM switches back to the QEMU process for 
each I/O ? If so, the l1_phys_map access time should be negligible 
compared to the SVM-VMX/kernel/user context switch !

Fabrice.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-06-02  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-27 16:56 [Qemu-devel] KQEMU code organization Jan Kiszka
2008-05-27 17:20 ` Ben Taylor
2008-05-27 18:25   ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2008-05-27 20:58 ` [Qemu-devel] " Fabrice Bellard
2008-05-27 21:40   ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2008-05-27 22:11 ` [Qemu-devel] " Fabrice Bellard
2008-05-28 16:02   ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2008-05-28 16:37     ` Fabrice Bellard
2008-05-28 16:55       ` Jan Kiszka
2008-05-28 18:34         ` Jan Kiszka
2008-05-29 12:29         ` Fabrice Bellard
2008-05-29 13:16           ` Jan Kiszka
2008-05-29 16:13           ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-29 16:26             ` Paul Brook
2008-05-29 16:35               ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-29 17:43                 ` Anthony Liguori
2008-05-29 21:46                   ` Fabrice Bellard
2008-05-30  3:32                     ` Mulyadi Santosa
2008-05-30  8:14                       ` Andreas Färber
2008-05-29 16:26             ` Anthony Liguori
2008-05-29 16:53               ` Jan Kiszka
2008-05-29 17:48                 ` Anthony Liguori
2008-05-31 10:18                 ` Avi Kivity
2008-06-02 16:34                   ` Jamie Lokier
2008-05-29 21:52               ` Fabrice Bellard
2008-05-31 10:06                 ` Avi Kivity
2008-06-01 22:58                 ` Anthony Liguori
2008-06-02  9:02                   ` Fabrice Bellard [this message]
2008-06-02 13:25                     ` Anthony Liguori
2008-05-29 16:48             ` Jan Kiszka
2008-05-29 17:47               ` Anthony Liguori

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4843B711.7090304@bellard.org \
    --to=fabrice@bellard.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).