lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 01:30:54 +0000 From: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com> To: "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> CC: "gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>, "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/13] KVM: Update IRTE according to guest interrupt configuration changes > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhang, Yang Z > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:21 AM > To: Wu, Feng; Paolo Bonzini; Alex Williamson > Cc: gleb@...nel.org; dwmw2@...radead.org; joro@...tes.org; > tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; hpa@...or.com; x86@...nel.org; > kvm@...r.kernel.org; iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/13] KVM: Update IRTE according to guest interrupt > configuration changes > > Wu, Feng wrote on 2014-11-13: > > > > > > kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org wrote on 2014-11-12: > >> kvm@...r.kernel.org; iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; > >> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] KVM: Update IRTE according to guest > >> interrupt configuration changes > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12/11/2014 10:19, Wu, Feng wrote: > >>>> You can certainly backport these patches to distros that do not > >>>> have VFIO. But upstream we should work on VFIO first. VFIO has > >>>> feature parity with legacy device assignment, and adding a new > >>>> feature that is not in VFIO would be a bad idea. > >>>> > >>>> By the way, do you have benchmark results for it? We have not been > >>>> able to see any performance improvement for APICv on e.g. netperf. > >>> > >>> Do you mean benchmark results for APICv itself or VT-d Posted-Interrtups? > >> > >> Especially for VT-d posted interrupts---but it'd be great to know > >> which workloads see the biggest speedup from APICv. > > > > We have some draft performance data internally, please see the > > attached. For VT-d PI, I think we can get the biggest performance gain > > if the VCPU is running in non-root mode for most of the time (not in > > HLT state), since external interrupt from assigned devices will be delivered by > guest directly in this case. > > That means we can run some cpu intensive workload in the guests. > > Have you check that the CPU side posted interrupt is taking effect in w/o VT-D > PI case? Per my understanding, the performance gap should be so large if you > use CPU side posted interrupt. This data more like the VT-d PI vs non PI(both > VT-d and CPU). Yes, this data is VT-d PI vs Non VT-d PI. The CPU side APICv mechanism (including CPU side Posted-Interrtups) is enabled. Thanks, Feng > > > > > Thanks, > > Feng > > > >> > >> Paolo > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the > >> body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at > >> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > Best regards, > Yang >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists