lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 2/2] virtio-mmio: add features for virtio-mmio specification version 3
From
Date


> On Dec 26, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/12/25 下午11:20, Liu, Jiang wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 25, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019/12/25 上午10:50, Zha Bin wrote:
>>>> From: Liu Jiang <gerry@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>
>>>> Userspace VMMs (e.g. Qemu microvm, Firecracker) take advantage of using
>>>> virtio over mmio devices as a lightweight machine model for modern
>>>> cloud. The standard virtio over MMIO transport layer only supports one
>>>> legacy interrupt, which is much heavier than virtio over PCI transport
>>>> layer using MSI. Legacy interrupt has long work path and causes specific
>>>> VMExits in following cases, which would considerably slow down the
>>>> performance:
>>>>
>>>> 1) read interrupt status register
>>>> 2) update interrupt status register
>>>> 3) write IOAPIC EOI register
>>>>
>>>> We proposed to update virtio over MMIO to version 3[1] to add the
>>>> following new features and enhance the performance.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Support Message Signaled Interrupt(MSI), which increases the
>>>> interrupt performance for virtio multi-queue devices
>>>> 2) Support per-queue doorbell, so the guest kernel may directly write
>>>> to the doorbells provided by virtio devices.
>>>>
>>>> The following is the network tcp_rr performance testing report, tested
>>>> with virtio-pci device, vanilla virtio-mmio device and patched
>>>> virtio-mmio device (run test 3 times for each case):
>>>>
>>>> netperf -t TCP_RR -H 192.168.1.36 -l 30 -- -r 32,1024
>>>>
>>>> Virtio-PCI Virtio-MMIO Virtio-MMIO(MSI)
>>>> trans/s 9536 6939 9500
>>>> trans/s 9734 7029 9749
>>>> trans/s 9894 7095 9318
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/20/113
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch. Two questions after a quick glance:
>>>
>>> 1) In PCI we choose to support MSI-X instead of MSI for having extra flexibility like alias, independent data and address (e.g for affinity) . Any reason for not start from MSI-X? E.g having MSI-X table and PBA (both of which looks pretty independent).
>> Hi Jason,
>> Thanks for reviewing patches on Christmas Day:)
>> The PCI MSI-x has several advantages over PCI MSI, mainly
>> 1) support 2048 vectors, much more than 32 vectors supported by MSI.
>> 2) dedicated address/data for each vector,
>> 3) per vector mask/pending bits.
>> The proposed MMIO MSI extension supports both 1) and 2),
>
>
> Aha right, I mis-read the patch. But more questions comes:
>
> 1) The association between vq and MSI-X vector is fixed. This means it can't work for a device that have more than 2047 queues. We probably need something similar to virtio-pci to allow a dynamic association.
> 2) The mask and unmask control is missed
>
>
>> but the extension doesn’t support 3) because
>> we noticed that the Linux virtio subsystem doesn’t really make use of interrupt masking/unmasking.
>
>
> Not directly used but masking/unmasking is widely used in irq subsystem which allows lots of optimizations.
>
>
>>
>> On the other hand, we want to simplify VMM implementations as simple as possible, and mimicking the PCI MSI-x
>> will cause some complexity to VMM implementations.
>
>
> I agree to simplify VMM implementation, but it looks to me introducing masking/pending won't cost too much code in the VMM implementation. Just new type of command for VIRTIO_MMIO_MSI_COMMAND.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>>
>>> 2) It's better to split notify_multiplexer out of MSI support to ease the reviewers (apply to spec patch as well)
>> Great suggestion, we will try to split the patch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gerry
>>
>>> Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-26 13:37    [W:0.089 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site