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.
next prev parent 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).