On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:39:04AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:28:42AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:14:05PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:19:54PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:31:22PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:29:59AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CCing Tom. @Tom does vhost-vsock work for you with SEV and
> > > > > > > > > current qemu?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, one can specify iommu_platform=on on a device that
> > > > > > > > > ain't a part of
> > > > > > > > > a secure-capable VM, just for the fun of it. And that breaks
> > > > > > > > > vhost-vsock. Or is setting iommu_platform=on only valid if
> > > > > > > > > qemu-system-s390x is protected virtualization capable?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW, I don't have a strong opinion on the fixes tag. We
> > > > > > > > > currently do not
> > > > > > > > > recommend setting iommu_platform, and thus I don't think we
> > > > > > > > > care too
> > > > > > > > > much about past qemus having problems with it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Halil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's just say if we do have a Fixes: tag we want to set it
> > > > > > > > correctly to
> > > > > > > > the commit that needs this fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I finally did some digging regarding the performance degradation.
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > s390x the performance degradation on vhost-net was introduced by
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > 076a93d797 ("exec: simplify address_space_get_iotlb_entry").
> > > > > > > Before
> > > > > > > IOMMUTLBEntry.addr_mask used to be based on plen, which in turn
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > calculated as the rest of the memory regions size (from address),
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > covered most of the guest address space. That is we didn't have a
> > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > lot of IOTLB API overhead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With commit 076a93d797 I see IOMMUTLBEntry.addr_mask == 0xfff
> > > > > > > which comes
> > > > > > > as ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK from flatview_do_translate(). To have things
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > properly I applied 75e5b70e6, b021d1c044, and d542800d1e on the
> > > > > > > level of
> > > > > > > 076a93d797 and 076a93d797~1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter, what's your take on this one?
> > > > >
> > > > > Commit 076a93d797 was one of the patchset where we want to provide
> > > > > sensible IOTLB entries and also that should start to work with huge
> > > > > pages.
> > > >
> > > > So the issue bundamentally is that it
> > > > never produces entries larger than page size.
> > > >
> > > > Wasteful even just with huge pages, all the more
> > > > so which passthrough which could have giga-byte
> > > > entries.
> > > >
> > > > Want to try fixing that?
> > >
> > > Yes we can fix that, but I'm still not sure whether changing the
> > > interface of address_space_get_iotlb_entry() to cover adhoc regions is
> > > a good idea, because I think it's still a memory core API and imho it
> > > would still be good to have IOTLBs returned to be what the hardware
> > > will be using (always page aligned IOTLBs).
> >
> > E.g. with virtio-iommu, there's no hardware in sight.
> > Even with e.g. VTD page aligned does not mean TARGET_PAGE,
> > can be much bigger.
>
> Right. Sorry to be unclear, but I meant the emulated device (in this
> case for x86 it's VT-d) should follow the hardware. Here the page
> mask is decided by VT-d in vtd_iommu_translate() for PT mode which is
> 4K only. For another example, ARM SMMU is doing similar thing (return
> PAGE_SIZE when PT enabled, smmuv3_translate()). That actually makes
> sense to me. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether there's side
> effect if we change this to cover the whole address space for PT.
>
> Thanks,
Well we can translate a batch of entries in a loop, and
as long as VA/PA mappings are consistent, treat the
batch as one.
This is a classical batching approach and not doing this is a classical
reason for bad performance.
> >
> > > Also it would still be
> > > not ideal because vhost backend will still need to send the MISSING
> > > messages and block for each of the continuous guest memory ranges
> > > registered, so there will still be misterious delay. Not to say
> > > logically all the caches can be invalidated too so in that sense I
> > > think it's as hacky as the vhost speedup patch mentioned below..
> > >
> > > Ideally I think vhost should be able to know when PT is enabled or
> > > disabled for the device, so the vhost backend (kernel or userspace)
> > > should be able to directly use GPA for DMA. That might need some new
> > > vhost interface.
> > >
> > > For the s390's specific issue, I would think Jason's patch an simple
> > > and ideal solution already.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Frankly speaking after a few years I forgot the original
> > > > > motivation of that whole thing, but IIRC there's a patch that was
> > > > > trying to speedup especially for vhost but I noticed it's not merged:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-06/msg00574.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding to the current patch, I'm not sure I understand it
> > > > > correctly, but is that performance issue only happens when (1) there's
> > > > > no intel-iommu device, and (2) there is iommu_platform=on specified
> > > > > for the vhost backend?
> > > > >
> > > > > If so, I'd confess I am not too surprised if this fails the boot with
> > > > > vhost-vsock because after all we speicified iommu_platform=on
> > > > > explicitly in the cmdline, so if we want it to work we can simply
> > > > > remove that iommu_platform=on when vhost-vsock doesn't support it
> > > > > yet... I thougth iommu_platform=on was added for that case - when we
> > > > > want to force IOMMU to be enabled from host side, and it should always
> > > > > be used with a vIOMMU device.
> > > > >
> > > > > However I also agree that from performance POV this patch helps for
> > > > > this quite special case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Peter Xu
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Xu
> >
>
> --
> Peter Xu
