Message-ID: <4FEC93BD.2070809@siemens.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:26:21 +0200
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Tomoki Sekiyama <tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] KVM: x86: CPU isolation and direct interrupts
 handling by guests

On 2012-06-28 18:58, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 09:07 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This RFC patch series provides facility to dedicate CPUs to KVM guests
>> and enable the guests to handle interrupts from passed-through PCI devices
>> directly (without VM exit and relay by the host).
>>
>> With this feature, we can improve throughput and response time of the device
>> and the host's CPU usage by reducing the overhead of interrupt handling.
>> This is good for the application using very high throughput/frequent
>> interrupt device (e.g. 10GbE NIC).
>> CPU-intensive high performance applications and real-time applicatoins
>> also gets benefit from CPU isolation feature, which reduces VM exit and
>> scheduling delay.
>>
>> Current implementation is still just PoC and have many limitations, but
>> submitted for RFC. Any comments are appreciated.
>>
>> * Overview
>> Intel and AMD CPUs have a feature to handle interrupts by guests without
>> VM Exit. However, because it cannot switch VM Exit based on IRQ vectors,
>> interrupts to both the host and the guest will be routed to guests.
>>
>> To avoid mixture of host and guest interrupts, in this patch, some of CPUs
>> are cut off from the host and dedicated to the guests. In addition, IRQ
>> affinity of the passed-through devices are set to the guest CPUs only.
>>
>> For IPI from the host to the guest, we use NMIs, that is an only interrupts
>> having another VM Exit flag.
>>
>> * Benefits
>> This feature provides benefits of virtualization to areas where high
>> performance and low latency are required, such as HPC and trading,
>> and so on. It also useful for consolidation in large scale systems with
>> many CPU cores and PCI devices passed-through or with SR-IOV.
>> For the future, it may be used to keep the guests running even if the host
>> is crashed (but that would need additional features like memory isolation).
>>
>> * Limitations
>> Current implementation is experimental, unstable, and has a lot of limitations.
>>  - SMP guests don't work correctly
>>  - Only Linux guest is supported
>>  - Only Intel VT-x is supported
>>  - Only MSI and MSI-X pass-through; no ISA interrupts support
>>  - Non passed-through PCI devices (including virtio) are slower
>>  - Kernel space PIT emulation does not work
>>  - Needs a lot of cleanups
>>
> 
> This is both impressive and scary.  What is the target scenario here?
> Partitioning?  I don't see this working for generic consolidation.
> 

>From my POV, partitioning - including hard realtime partitions - would
provide some use cases. But, as far as I saw, there are still major
restrictions in this approach, e.g. that you can't return to userspace
on the slave core. Or even execute the in-kernel device models on that core.

I think we need something based on the no-hz work on the long run, ie.
the ability to run a single VCPU thread of the userland hypervisor on a
single core with zero rescheduling and unrelated interruptions - as far
as the guest load scenario allows this (we have some here).

Well, and we need proper hardware support for direct IRQ injection on x86...

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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