Date:	Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:14:15 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Rob Earhart <earhart@...gle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api

On 02/03/2012 12:13 AM, Rob Earhart wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com
> <mailto:avi@...hat.com>> wrote:
>
>     The kvm api has been accumulating cruft for several years now.
>      This is
>     due to feature creep, fixing mistakes, experience gained by the
>     maintainers and developers on how to do things, ports to new
>     architectures, and simply as a side effect of a code base that is
>     developed slowly and incrementally.
>
>     While I don't think we can justify a complete revamp of the API
>     now, I'm
>     writing this as a thought experiment to see where a from-scratch
>     API can
>     take us.  Of course, if we do implement this, the new and old APIs
>     will
>     have to be supported side by side for several years.
>
>     Syscalls
>     --------
>     kvm currently uses the much-loved ioctl() system call as its entry
>     point.  While this made it easy to add kvm to the kernel
>     unintrusively,
>     it does have downsides:
>
>     - overhead in the entry path, for the ioctl dispatch path and vcpu
>     mutex
>     (low but measurable)
>     - semantic mismatch: kvm really wants a vcpu to be tied to a
>     thread, and
>     a vm to be tied to an mm_struct, but the current API ties them to file
>     descriptors, which can move between threads and processes.  We check
>     that they don't, but we don't want to.
>
>     Moving to syscalls avoids these problems, but introduces new ones:
>
>     - adding new syscalls is generally frowned upon, and kvm will need
>     several
>     - syscalls into modules are harder and rarer than into core kernel
>     code
>     - will need to add a vcpu pointer to task_struct, and a kvm pointer to
>     mm_struct
>
>     Syscalls that operate on the entire guest will pick it up implicitly
>     from the mm_struct, and syscalls that operate on a vcpu will pick
>     it up
>     from current.
>
>
> <snipped>
>
> I like the ioctl() interface.  If the overhead matters in your hot path,

I can't say that it's a pressing problem, but it's not negligible.

> I suspect you're doing it wrong;

What am I doing wrong?

> use irq fds & ioevent fds.  You might fix the semantic mismatch by
> having a notion of a "current process's VM" and "current thread's
> VCPU", and just use the one /dev/kvm filedescriptor.
>
> Or you could go the other way, and break the connection between VMs
> and processes / VCPUs and threads: I don't know how easy it is to do
> it in Linux, but a VCPU might be backed by a kernel thread, operated
> on via ioctl()s, indicating that they've exited the guest by having
> their descriptors become readable (and either use read() or mmap() to
> pull off the reason why the VCPU exited). 

That breaks the ability to renice vcpu threads (unless you want the user
renice kernel threads).

> This would allow for a variety of different programming styles for the
> VMM--I'm a fan of CSP model myself, but that's hard to do with the
> current API.

Just convert the synchronous API to an RPC over a pipe, in the vcpu
thread, and you have the asynchronous model you asked for.

>
> It'd be nice to be able to kick a VCPU out of the guest without
> messing around with signals.  One possibility would be to tie it to an
> eventfd;

We have to support signals in any case, supporting more mechanisms just
increases complexity.

> another might be to add a pseudo-register to indicate whether the VCPU
> is explicitly suspended.  (Combined with the decoupling idea, you'd
> want another pseudo-register to indicate whether the VMM is implicitly
> suspended due to an intercept; a single "runnable" bit is racy if both
> the VMM and VCPU are setting it.)
>
> ioevent fds are definitely useful.  It might be cute if they could
> synchronously set the VIRTIO_USED_F_NOTIFY bit - the guest could do
> this itself, but that'd require giving the guest write access to the
> used side of the virtio queue, and I kind of like the idea that it
> doesn't need write access there.  Then again, I don't have any perf
> data to back up the need for this.
>

I'd hate to tie ioeventfds into virtio specifics, they're a general
mechanism.  Especially if the guest can do it itself.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists