On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > OK we talked about this a while ago, here's > a summary and some proposals: > At the moment, virtio PCI uses IO BARs for all accesses. > > The reason for IO use is the cost of different VM exit types > of transactions and their emulation on KVM on x86 > (it would be trivial to use memory BARs on non x86 platforms > if they don't have PIO). > Example benchmark (cycles per transaction): > (io access) outw 1737 > (memory access) movw 4341 > for comparison: > (hypercall access): vmcall 1566 > (pv memory access) movw_fast 1817 (*explanation what this is below) > > This creates a problem if we want to make virtio devices > proper PCI express devices with native hotplug support. > This is because each hotpluggable PCI express device always has > a PCI express port (port per device), > where each port is represented by a PCI to PCI bridge. > In turn, a PCI to PCI bridge claims a 4Kbyte aligned > range of IO addresses. This means that we can have at > most 15 such devices, this is a nasty limitation. > > Another problem with PIO is support for physical virtio devices, > and nested virt: KVM currently programs all PIO accesses > to cause vm exit, so using this device in a VM will be slow. > > So we really want to stop using IO BARs completely if at all possible, > but looking at the table above, switching to memory BAR and movw for > notifications will not work well. > > Possible solutions: > 1. hypercall instead of PIO > basically add a hypercall that gets an MMIO address/data > and does an MMIO write for us. > We'll want some capability in the device to let guest know > this is what it should do. > Pros: even faster than PIO > Cons: this won't help nested or assigned devices (won't hurt > them either as it will be conditional on the capability above). > Cons: need host kernel support, which then has to be maintained > forever, even if intel speeds up MMIO exits. > > 2. pv memory access > There are two reasons that memory access is slower: > - one is that it's handled as an EPT misconfiguration error > so handled by cpu slow path > - one is that we need to decode the x86 instruction in > software, to calculate address/data for the access. > > We could agree that guests would use a specific instruction > for virtio accesses, and fast-path it specifically. > This is the pv memory access option above. > Pros: helps assigned devices and nested virt > Pros: easy to drop if hardware support is there > Cons: a bit slower than IO > Cons: need host kernel support > > 3. hypervisor assigned IO address > qemu can reserve IO addresses and assign to virtio devices. > 2 bytes per device (for notification and ISR access) will be > enough. So we can reserve 4K and this gets us 2000 devices. > From KVM perspective, nothing changes. > We'll want some capability in the device to let guest know > this is what it should do, and pass the io address. > One way to reserve the addresses is by using the bridge. > Pros: no need for host kernel support > Pros: regular PIO so fast > Cons: does not help assigned devices, breaks nested virt > > Simply counting pros/cons, option 3 seems best. It's also the > easiest to implement.
Agree. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
