| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:37:29 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: "zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com" <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
"intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: subsitute kvm_read/write_guest
with vfio_dma_rw
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:49:41 -0500
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 04:06:51AM +0800, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:54:55 -0500
> > Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As a device model, it is better to read/write guest memory using vfio
> > > interface, so that vfio is able to maintain dirty info of device IOVAs.
> > >
> > > Compared to kvm interfaces kvm_read/write_guest(), vfio_dma_rw() has ~600
> > > cycles more overhead on average.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > | interface | avg cpu cycles |
> > > |-----------------------------------|
> > > | kvm_write_guest | 1554 |
> > > | ----------------------------------|
> > > | kvm_read_guest | 707 |
> > > |-----------------------------------|
> > > | vfio_dma_rw(w) | 2274 |
> > > |-----------------------------------|
> > > | vfio_dma_rw(r) | 1378 |
> > > -------------------------------------
> >
> > In v1 you had:
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > | interface | avg cpu cycles |
> > |-----------------------------------|
> > | kvm_write_guest | 1546 |
> > | ----------------------------------|
> > | kvm_read_guest | 686 |
> > |-----------------------------------|
> > | vfio_iova_rw(w) | 2233 |
> > |-----------------------------------|
> > | vfio_iova_rw(r) | 1262 |
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > So the kvm numbers remained within +0.5-3% while the vfio numbers are
> > now +1.8-9.2%. I would have expected the algorithm change to at least
> > not be worse for small accesses and be better for accesses crossing
> > page boundaries. Do you know what happened?
> >
> I only tested the 4 interfaces in GVT's environment, where most of the
> guest memory accesses are less than one page.
> And the different fluctuations should be caused by the locks.
> vfio_dma_rw contends locks with other vfio accesses which are assumed to
> be abundant in the case of GVT.
Hmm, so maybe it's time to convert vfio_iommu.lock from a mutex to a
rwsem? Thanks,
Alex
> > > Comparison of benchmarks scores are as blow:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > | avg score | kvm_read/write_guest | vfio_dma_rw |
> > > |----------------------------------------------------|
> > > | Glmark2 | 1284 | 1296 |
> > > |----------------------------------------------------|
> > > | Lightsmark | 61.24 | 61.27 |
> > > |----------------------------------------------------|
> > > | OpenArena | 140.9 | 137.4 |
> > > |----------------------------------------------------|
> > > | Heaven | 671 | 670 |
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > No obvious performance downgrade found.
> > >
> > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 26 +++++++-------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > > index bd79a9718cc7..17edc9a7ff05 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > > @@ -1966,31 +1966,19 @@ static int kvmgt_rw_gpa(unsigned long handle, unsigned long gpa,
> > > void *buf, unsigned long len, bool write)
> > > {
> > > struct kvmgt_guest_info *info;
> > > - struct kvm *kvm;
> > > - int idx, ret;
> > > - bool kthread = current->mm == NULL;
> > > + int ret;
> > > + struct intel_vgpu *vgpu;
> > > + struct device *dev;
> > >
> > > if (!handle_valid(handle))
> > > return -ESRCH;
> > >
> > > info = (struct kvmgt_guest_info *)handle;
> > > - kvm = info->kvm;
> > > -
> > > - if (kthread) {
> > > - if (!mmget_not_zero(kvm->mm))
> > > - return -EFAULT;
> > > - use_mm(kvm->mm);
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> > > - ret = write ? kvm_write_guest(kvm, gpa, buf, len) :
> > > - kvm_read_guest(kvm, gpa, buf, len);
> > > - srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> > > + vgpu = info->vgpu;
> > > + dev = mdev_dev(vgpu->vdev.mdev);
> > >
> > > - if (kthread) {
> > > - unuse_mm(kvm->mm);
> > > - mmput(kvm->mm);
> > > - }
> > > + ret = write ? vfio_dma_rw(dev, gpa, buf, len, true) :
> > > + vfio_dma_rw(dev, gpa, buf, len, false);
> >
> > As Paolo suggested previously, this can be simplified:
> >
> > ret = vfio_dma_rw(dev, gpa, buf, len, write);
> >
> > >
> > > return ret;
> >
> > Or even more simple, remove the ret variable:
> >
> > return vfio_dma_rw(dev, gpa, buf, len, write);
> >
> oh, it seems that I missed Paolo's mail. will change it. thank you!
>
> Thanks
> Yan
> >
> > > }
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists