[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5486C6CA.8080006@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:54:18 +0100
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: Jike Song <jike.song@...el.com>,
"intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: "White, Michael L" <michael.l.white@...el.com>,
"Cowperthwaite, David J" <david.j.cowperthwaite@...el.com>,
"Li, Susie" <susie.li@...el.com>,
"Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@...el.com>,
"Haron, Sandra" <sandra.haron@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] KVMGT - the implementation of Intel GVT-g(full
GPU virtualization) for KVM
On 2014-12-04 03:24, Jike Song wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are pleased to announce the first release of KVMGT project. KVMGT is
> the implementation of Intel GVT-g technology, a full GPU virtualization
> solution. Under Intel GVT-g, a virtual GPU instance is maintained for
> each VM, with part of performance critical resources directly assigned.
> The capability of running native graphics driver inside a VM, without
> hypervisor intervention in performance critical paths, achieves a good
> balance of performance, feature, and sharing capability.
>
>
> KVMGT is still in the early stage:
>
> - Basic functions of full GPU virtualization works, guest can see a
> full-featured vGPU.
> We ran several 3D workloads such as lightsmark, nexuiz, urbanterror
> and warsow.
>
> - Only Linux guest supported so far, and PPGTT must be disabled in
> guest through a
> kernel parameter(see README.kvmgt in QEMU).
>
> - This drop also includes some Xen specific changes, which will be
> cleaned up later.
>
> - Our end goal is to upstream both XenGT and KVMGT, which shares ~90%
> logic for vGPU
> device model (will be part of i915 driver), with only difference in
> hypervisor
> specific services
>
> - insufficient test coverage, so please bear with stability issues :)
>
>
>
> There are things need to be improved, esp. the KVM interfacing part:
>
> 1 a domid was added to each KVMGT guest
>
> An ID is needed for foreground OS switching, e.g.
>
> # echo <domid> > /sys/kernel/vgt/control/foreground_vm
>
> domid 0 is reserved for host OS.
>
>
> 2 SRCU workarounds.
>
> Some KVM functions, such as:
>
> kvm_io_bus_register_dev
> install_new_memslots
>
> must be called *without* &kvm->srcu read-locked. Otherwise it
> hangs.
>
> In KVMGT, we need to register an iodev only *after* BAR
> registers are
> written by guest. That means, we already have &kvm->srcu hold -
> trapping/emulating PIO(BAR registers) makes us in such a condition.
> That will make kvm_io_bus_register_dev hangs.
>
> Currently we have to disable rcu_assign_pointer() in such
> functions.
>
> These were dirty workarounds, your suggestions are high welcome!
>
>
> 3 syscalls were called to access "/dev/mem" from kernel
>
> An in-kernel memslot was added for aperture, but using syscalls
> like
> open and mmap to open and access the character device "/dev/mem",
> for pass-through.
>
>
>
>
> The source codes(kernel, qemu as well as seabios) are available at github:
>
> git://github.com/01org/KVMGT-kernel
> git://github.com/01org/KVMGT-qemu
> git://github.com/01org/KVMGT-seabios
>
> In the KVMGT-qemu repository, there is a "README.kvmgt" to be referred.
>
>
>
> More information about Intel GVT-g and KVMGT can be found at:
>
> https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc14/technical-sessions/presentation/tian
>
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/KVMGT-a%20Full%20GPU%20Virtualization%20Solution_1.pdf
>
>
>
> Appreciate your comments, BUG reports, and contributions!
>
There is an even increasing interest to keep KVM's in-kernel guest
interface as small as possible, specifically for security reasons. I'm
sure there are some good performance reasons to create a new in-kernel
device model, but I suppose those will need good evidences why things
are done in the way they finally should be - and not via a user-space
device model. This is likely not a binary decision (all userspace vs. no
userspace), it is more about the size and robustness of the in-kernel
model vs. its performance.
One aspect could also be important: Are there hardware improvements in
sight that will eventually help to reduce the in-kernel device model and
make the overall design even more robust? How will those changes fit
best into a proposed user/kernel split?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
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