Date:   Mon, 24 Dec 2018 13:12:49 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] vhost: accelerate metadata access through
 vmap()

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 04:32:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2018/12/14 下午8:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:42:18AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018/12/13 下午11:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 06:10:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > Hi:
> > > > > 
> > > > > This series tries to access virtqueue metadata through kernel virtual
> > > > > address instead of copy_user() friends since they had too much
> > > > > overheads like checks, spec barriers or even hardware feature
> > > > > toggling.
> > > > Userspace accesses through remapping tricks and next time there's a need
> > > > for a new barrier we are left to figure it out by ourselves.
> > > 
> > > I don't get here, do you mean spec barriers?
> > I mean the next barrier people decide to put into userspace
> > memory accesses.
> > 
> > > It's completely unnecessary for
> > > vhost which is kernel thread.
> > It's defence in depth. Take a look at the commit that added them.
> > And yes quite possibly in most cases we actually have a spec
> > barrier in the validation phase. If we do let's use the
> > unsafe variants so they can be found.
> 
> 
> unsafe variants can only work if you can batch userspace access. This is not
> necessarily the case for light load.


Do we care a lot about the light load? How would you benchmark it?


> 
> > 
> > > And even if you're right, vhost is not the
> > > only place, there's lots of vmap() based accessing in kernel.
> > For sure. But if one can get by without get user pages, one
> > really should. Witness recently uncovered mess with file
> > backed storage.
> 
> 
> We only pin metadata pages, I don't believe they will be used by any DMA.

It doesn't matter really, if you dirty pages behind the MM back
the problem is there.

> 
> > 
> > > Think in
> > > another direction, this means we won't suffer form unnecessary barriers for
> > > kthread like vhost in the future, we will manually pick the one we really
> > > need
> > I personally think we should err on the side of caution not on the side of
> > performance.
> 
> 
> So what you suggest may lead unnecessary performance regression (10%-20%)
> which is part of the goal of this series. We should audit and only use the
> one we really need instead of depending on copy_user() friends().
> 
> If we do it our own, it could be slow for for security fix but it's no less
> safe than before with performance kept.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > (but it should have little possibility).
> > History seems to teach otherwise.
> 
> 
> What case did you mean here?
> 
> 
> > 
> > > Please notice we only access metdata through remapping not the data itself.
> > > This idea has been used for high speed userspace backend for years, e.g
> > > packet socket or recent AF_XDP.
> > I think their justification for the higher risk is that they are mostly
> > designed for priveledged userspace.
> 
> 
> I think it's the same with TUN/TAP, privileged process can pass them to
> unprivileged ones.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > The only difference is the page was remap to
> > > from kernel to userspace.
> > At least that avoids the g.u.p mess.
> 
> 
> I'm still not very clear at the point. We only pin 2 or 4 pages, they're
> several other cases that will pin much more.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > >     I don't
> > > > like the idea I have to say.  As a first step, why don't we switch to
> > > > unsafe_put_user/unsafe_get_user etc?
> > > 
> > > Several reasons:
> > > 
> > > - They only have x86 variant, it won't have any difference for the rest of
> > > architecture.
> > Is there an issue on other architectures? If yes they can be extended
> > there.
> 
> 
> Consider the unexpected amount of work and in the best case it can give the
> same performance to vmap(). I'm not sure it's worth.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > - unsafe_put_user/unsafe_get_user is not sufficient for accessing structures
> > > (e.g accessing descriptor) or arrays (batching).
> > So you want unsafe_copy_xxx_user? I can do this. Hang on will post.
> > 
> > > - Unless we can batch at least the accessing of two places in three of
> > > avail, used and descriptor in one run. There will be no difference. E.g we
> > > can batch updating used ring, but it won't make any difference in this case.
> > > 
> > So let's batch them all?
> 
> 
> Batching might not help for the case of light load. And we need to measure
> the gain/cost of batching itself.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > That would be more of an apples to apples comparison, would it not?
> > > 
> > > Apples to apples comparison only help if we are the No.1. But the fact is we
> > > are not. If we want to compete with e.g dpdk or AF_XDP, vmap() is the
> > > fastest method AFAIK.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > We need to speed up the packet access itself too though.
> > You can't vmap all of guest memory.
> 
> 
> This series only pin and vmap very few pages (metadata).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Test shows about 24% improvement on TX PPS. It should benefit other
> > > > > cases as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please review
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jason Wang (3):
> > > > >     vhost: generalize adding used elem
> > > > >     vhost: fine grain userspace memory accessors
> > > > >     vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address
> > > > > 
> > > > >    drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 281 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > >    drivers/vhost/vhost.h |  11 ++
> > > > >    2 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 2.17.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists