linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:04:21 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

On 12/21/09 10:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 05:34 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would be fair to point out that these patches have been
>>> objected to
>>> by the KVM folks quite extensively,
>>>      
>> Actually, these patches have nothing to do with the KVM folks.  You are
>> perhaps confusing this with the hypervisor-side discussion, of which
>> there is indeed much disagreement.
>>    
> 
> This is true, though these drivers are fairly pointless for
> virtualization without the host side support.

The host side support is available in various forms (git tree, rpm, etc)
from our project page.  I would encourage any interested parties to
check it out:

Here is the git tree

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/ghaskins/alacrityvm/linux-2.6.git;a=summary

Here are some RPMs:

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel://LLDC://alacrity/openSUSE_11.1/

And the main project site:

http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/AlacrityVM

> 
> I did have a few issues with the guest drivers:
> - the duplication of effort wrt virtio.  These drivers don't cover
> exactly the same problem space, but nearly so.

Virtio itself is more or less compatible with this effort, as we have
discussed (see my virtio-vbus transport, for instance).  I have issues
with some of the design decisions in the virtio device and ring models,
but they are minor in comparison to the beef I have with the virtio-pci
transport as a whole.

> - no effort at scalability - all interrupts are taken on one cpu

Addressed by the virtual-interrupt controller.  This will enable us to
route shm-signal messages to a core, under guidance from the standard
irq-balance facilities.

> - the patches introduce a new virtual interrupt controller for dubious
> (IMO) benefits

See above.  Its not fully plumbed yet, which is perhaps the reason for
the confusion as to its merits.  Eventually I will trap the affinity
calls and pass them to the host, too.  Today, it at least lets us see
the shm-signal statistics under /proc/interrupts, which is nice and is
consistent with other IO mechanisms.

> 
>>  From my research, the reason why virt in general, and KVM in particular
>> suffers on the IO performance front is as follows: IOs
>> (traps+interrupts) are more expensive than bare-metal, and real hardware
>> is naturally concurrent (your hbas and nics are effectively parallel
>> execution engines, etc).
>>
>> Assuming my observations are correct, in order to squeeze maximum
>> performance from a given guest, you need to do three things:  A)
>> eliminate as many IOs as you possibly can, B) reduce the cost of the
>> ones you can't avoid, and C) run your algorithms in parallel to emulate
>> concurrent silicon.
>>    
> 
> All these are addressed by vhost-net without introducing new drivers.

No, B and C definitely are, but A is lacking.  And the performance
suffers as a result in my testing (vhost-net still throws a ton of exits
as its limited by virtio-pci and only adds about 1Gb/s to virtio-u, far
behind venet even with things like zero-copy turned off).

I will also point out that these performance aspects are only a subset
of the discussion, since we are also addressing things like
qos/priority, alternate fabric types, etc.  I do not expect you to
understand and agree where I am going per se.  We can have that
discussion when I once again ask you for merge consideration.  But if
you say "they are the same" I will call you on it, because they are
demonstrably unique capability sets.

Kind Regards,
-Greg

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)