linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add I/O hypercalls for i386 paravirt

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:03:17 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add I/O hypercalls for i386 paravirt

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Zachary Amsden wrote:
>   
>> In general, I/O in a virtual guest is subject to performance problems. 
>> The I/O can not be completed physically, but must be virtualized.  This
>> means trapping and decoding port I/O instructions from the guest OS. 
>> Not only is the trap for a #GP heavyweight, both in the processor and
>> the hypervisor (which usually has a complex #GP path), but this forces
>> the hypervisor to decode the individual instruction which has faulted. 
>> Worse, even with hardware assist such as VT, the exit reason alone is
>> not sufficient to determine the true nature of the faulting instruction,
>> requiring a complex and costly instruction decode and simulation.
>>
>> This patch provides hypercalls for the i386 port I/O instructions, which
>> vastly helps guests which use native-style drivers.  For certain VMI
>> workloads, this provides a performance boost of up to 30%.  We expect
>> KVM and lguest to be able to achieve similar gains on I/O intensive
>> workloads.
>>
>>     
>
> What about cost on hardware?
>   

On modern hardware, port I/O is about the most expensive thing you can 
do.  The extra function call cost is totally masked by the stall.  We 
have measured with port I/O converted like this on real hardware, and 
have seen zero measurable impact on macro-benchmarks.  Micro-benchmarks 
that generate massively repeated port I/O might show some effect on 
ancient hardware, but I can't even imagine a workload which does such a 
thing, other than a polling port I/O loop perhaps - which would not be 
performance critical in any case I can reasonably imagine.

Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/