Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 01:03:45PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>   
>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>     
>>> * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins@novell.com) wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> VF drivers can also have this issue (and typically use mmio).
>>>>> I at least have a better idea what your proposal is, thanks for
>>>>> explanation.  Are you able to demonstrate concrete benefit with it yet
>>>>> (improved latency numbers for example)?
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> I had a test-harness/numbers for this kind of thing, but its a bit
>>>> crufty since its from ~1.5 years ago.  I will dig it up, update it, and
>>>> generate/post new numbers.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> That would be useful, because I keep coming back to pio and shared
>>> page(s) when think of why not to do this.  Seems I'm not alone in that.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -chris
>>>   
>>>       
>> I completed the resurrection of the test and wrote up a little wiki on
>> the subject, which you can find here:
>>
>> http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/WhyHypercalls
>>
>> Hopefully this answers Chris' "show me the numbers" and Anthony's "Why
>> reinvent the wheel?" questions.
>>
>> I will include this information when I publish the updated v2 series
>> with the s/hypercall/dynhc changes.
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions.
>>     
>
> Greg,
>
> I think comparison is not entirely fair. You're using
> KVM_HC_VAPIC_POLL_IRQ ("null" hypercall) and the compiler optimizes that
> (on Intel) to only one register read:
>
>         nr = kvm_register_read(vcpu, VCPU_REGS_RAX);
>
> Whereas in a real hypercall for (say) PIO you would need the address,
> size, direction and data.
>   

Hi Marcelo,
   I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here.  What you are
proposing is actually a different test: a 4th type I would call  "PIO
over HC".  It is distinctly different than the existing MMIO, PIO, and
HC tests already present.

I assert that the current HC test remains valid because for pure
hypercalls, the "nr" *is* the address.  It identifies the function to be
executed (e.g. VAPIC_POLL_IRQ = null), just like the PIO address of my
nullio device identifies the function to be executed (i.e.
nullio_write() = null)

My argument is that the HC test emulates the "dynhc()" concept I have
been talking about, whereas the PIOoHC is more like the
pv_io_ops->iowrite approach.

That said, your 4th test type would actually be a very interesting
data-point to add to the suite (especially since we are still kicking
around the notion of doing something like this).  I will update the
patches.


> Also for PIO/MMIO you're adding this unoptimized lookup to the 
> measurement:
>
>         pio_dev = vcpu_find_pio_dev(vcpu, port, size, !in);
>         if (pio_dev) {
>                 kernel_pio(pio_dev, vcpu, vcpu->arch.pio_data);
>                 complete_pio(vcpu); 
>                 return 1;
>         }
>
> Whereas for hypercall measurement you don't.

In theory they should both share about the same algorithmic complexity
in the decode-stage, but due to the possible optimization you mention
you may have a point.  I need to take some steps to ensure the HC path
isn't artificially simplified by GCC (like making the execute stage do
some trivial work like you mention below).

>  I believe a fair comparison
> would be have a shared guest/host memory area where you store guest/host
> TSC values and then do, on guest:
>
> 	rdtscll(&shared_area->guest_tsc);
> 	pio/mmio/hypercall
> 	... back to host
> 	rdtscll(&shared_area->host_tsc);
>
> And then calculate the difference (minus guests TSC_OFFSET of course)?
>
>   
I'm not sure I need that much complexity.  I can probably just change
the test harness to generate an ioread32(), and have the functions
return the TSC value as a return parameter for all test types.  The
important thing is that we pick something extremely cheap (yet dynamic)
to compute so the execution time doesn't invalidate the measurement
granularity with a large constant.

Regards,
-Greg