All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Any way to disable KVM VHE extension?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:00:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6331dfe5-a028-4a71-6cc1-479003a58f47@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e992d47-1f17-d49f-8341-670770ac49ef@suse.com>

On 2021-07-15 10:44, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/7/15 下午5:28, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-07-15 09:55, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently I'm playing around the Nvidia Xavier AGX board, which has 
>>> VHE extension support.
>>>
>>> In theory, considering the CPU and memory, it should be pretty 
>>> powerful compared to boards like RPI CM4.
>>>
>>> But to my surprise, KVM runs pretty poor on Xavier.
>>>
>>> Just booting the edk2 firmware could take over 10s, and 20s to fully 
>>> boot the kernel.
>>> Even my VM on RPI CM4 has way faster boot time, even just running on 
>>> PCIE2.0 x1 lane NVME, and just 4 2.1Ghz A72 core.
>>>
>>> This is definitely out of my expectation, I double checked to be sure 
>>> that it's running in KVM mode.
>>>
>>> But further digging shows that, since Xavier AGX CPU supports VHE, 
>>> kvm is running in VHE mode other than HYP mode on CM4.
>>>
>>> Is there anyway to manually disable VHE mode to test the more common 
>>> HYP mode on Xavier?
>>
>> According to kernel-parameters.txt, "kvm-arm.mode=nvhe" (or its 
>> low-level equivalent "id_aa64mmfr1.vh=0") on the command line should 
>> do that.
> 
> Thanks for this one, I stupidly only searched modinfo of kvm, and didn't 
> even bother to search arch/arm64/kvm...
> 
>>
>> However I'd imagine the discrepancy is likely to be something more 
>> fundamental to the wildly different microarchitectures. There's 
>> certainly no harm in giving non-VHE a go for comparison, but I 
>> wouldn't be surprised if it turns out even slower...
> 
> You're totally right, with nvhe mode, it's still the same slow speed.
> 
> BTW, what did you mean by the "wildly different microarch"?
> Is ARMv8.2 arch that different from ARMv8 of RPI4?

I don't mean Armv8.x architectural features, I mean the actual 
implementation of NVIDIA's Carmel core is very, very different from 
Cortex-A72 or indeed our newer v8.2 Cortex-A designs.

> And any extra methods I could try to explore the reason of the slowness?

I guess the first check would be whether you're trapping and exiting the 
VM significantly more. I believe there are stats somewhere, but I don't 
know exactly where, sorry - I know very little about actually *using* KVM :)

If it's not that, then it might just be that EDK2 is doing a lot of 
cache maintenance or system register modification or some other 
operation that happens to be slower on Carmel compared to Cortex-A72.

Robin.

> At least RPI CM4 is beyond my expectation and is working pretty fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Qu
> 
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>>> BTW, this is the dmesg related to KVM on Xavier, running v5.13 
>>> upstream kernel, with 64K page size:
>>> [    0.852357] kvm [1]: IPA Size Limit: 40 bits
>>> [    0.857378] kvm [1]: vgic interrupt IRQ9
>>> [    0.862122] kvm: pmu event creation failed -2
>>> [    0.866734] kvm [1]: VHE mode initialized successfully
>>>
>>> While on CM4, the host runs v5.12.10 upstream kernel (with downstream 
>>> dtb), with 4K page size:
>>> [    1.276818] kvm [1]: IPA Size Limit: 44 bits
>>> [    1.278425] kvm [1]: vgic interrupt IRQ9
>>> [    1.278620] kvm [1]: Hyp mode initialized successfully
>>>
>>> Could it be the PAGE size causing problem?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Any way to disable KVM VHE extension?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:00:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6331dfe5-a028-4a71-6cc1-479003a58f47@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e992d47-1f17-d49f-8341-670770ac49ef@suse.com>

On 2021-07-15 10:44, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/7/15 下午5:28, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-07-15 09:55, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently I'm playing around the Nvidia Xavier AGX board, which has 
>>> VHE extension support.
>>>
>>> In theory, considering the CPU and memory, it should be pretty 
>>> powerful compared to boards like RPI CM4.
>>>
>>> But to my surprise, KVM runs pretty poor on Xavier.
>>>
>>> Just booting the edk2 firmware could take over 10s, and 20s to fully 
>>> boot the kernel.
>>> Even my VM on RPI CM4 has way faster boot time, even just running on 
>>> PCIE2.0 x1 lane NVME, and just 4 2.1Ghz A72 core.
>>>
>>> This is definitely out of my expectation, I double checked to be sure 
>>> that it's running in KVM mode.
>>>
>>> But further digging shows that, since Xavier AGX CPU supports VHE, 
>>> kvm is running in VHE mode other than HYP mode on CM4.
>>>
>>> Is there anyway to manually disable VHE mode to test the more common 
>>> HYP mode on Xavier?
>>
>> According to kernel-parameters.txt, "kvm-arm.mode=nvhe" (or its 
>> low-level equivalent "id_aa64mmfr1.vh=0") on the command line should 
>> do that.
> 
> Thanks for this one, I stupidly only searched modinfo of kvm, and didn't 
> even bother to search arch/arm64/kvm...
> 
>>
>> However I'd imagine the discrepancy is likely to be something more 
>> fundamental to the wildly different microarchitectures. There's 
>> certainly no harm in giving non-VHE a go for comparison, but I 
>> wouldn't be surprised if it turns out even slower...
> 
> You're totally right, with nvhe mode, it's still the same slow speed.
> 
> BTW, what did you mean by the "wildly different microarch"?
> Is ARMv8.2 arch that different from ARMv8 of RPI4?

I don't mean Armv8.x architectural features, I mean the actual 
implementation of NVIDIA's Carmel core is very, very different from 
Cortex-A72 or indeed our newer v8.2 Cortex-A designs.

> And any extra methods I could try to explore the reason of the slowness?

I guess the first check would be whether you're trapping and exiting the 
VM significantly more. I believe there are stats somewhere, but I don't 
know exactly where, sorry - I know very little about actually *using* KVM :)

If it's not that, then it might just be that EDK2 is doing a lot of 
cache maintenance or system register modification or some other 
operation that happens to be slower on Carmel compared to Cortex-A72.

Robin.

> At least RPI CM4 is beyond my expectation and is working pretty fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Qu
> 
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>>> BTW, this is the dmesg related to KVM on Xavier, running v5.13 
>>> upstream kernel, with 64K page size:
>>> [    0.852357] kvm [1]: IPA Size Limit: 40 bits
>>> [    0.857378] kvm [1]: vgic interrupt IRQ9
>>> [    0.862122] kvm: pmu event creation failed -2
>>> [    0.866734] kvm [1]: VHE mode initialized successfully
>>>
>>> While on CM4, the host runs v5.12.10 upstream kernel (with downstream 
>>> dtb), with 4K page size:
>>> [    1.276818] kvm [1]: IPA Size Limit: 44 bits
>>> [    1.278425] kvm [1]: vgic interrupt IRQ9
>>> [    1.278620] kvm [1]: Hyp mode initialized successfully
>>>
>>> Could it be the PAGE size causing problem?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
> 
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Any way to disable KVM VHE extension?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:00:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6331dfe5-a028-4a71-6cc1-479003a58f47@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e992d47-1f17-d49f-8341-670770ac49ef@suse.com>

On 2021-07-15 10:44, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/7/15 下午5:28, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-07-15 09:55, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently I'm playing around the Nvidia Xavier AGX board, which has 
>>> VHE extension support.
>>>
>>> In theory, considering the CPU and memory, it should be pretty 
>>> powerful compared to boards like RPI CM4.
>>>
>>> But to my surprise, KVM runs pretty poor on Xavier.
>>>
>>> Just booting the edk2 firmware could take over 10s, and 20s to fully 
>>> boot the kernel.
>>> Even my VM on RPI CM4 has way faster boot time, even just running on 
>>> PCIE2.0 x1 lane NVME, and just 4 2.1Ghz A72 core.
>>>
>>> This is definitely out of my expectation, I double checked to be sure 
>>> that it's running in KVM mode.
>>>
>>> But further digging shows that, since Xavier AGX CPU supports VHE, 
>>> kvm is running in VHE mode other than HYP mode on CM4.
>>>
>>> Is there anyway to manually disable VHE mode to test the more common 
>>> HYP mode on Xavier?
>>
>> According to kernel-parameters.txt, "kvm-arm.mode=nvhe" (or its 
>> low-level equivalent "id_aa64mmfr1.vh=0") on the command line should 
>> do that.
> 
> Thanks for this one, I stupidly only searched modinfo of kvm, and didn't 
> even bother to search arch/arm64/kvm...
> 
>>
>> However I'd imagine the discrepancy is likely to be something more 
>> fundamental to the wildly different microarchitectures. There's 
>> certainly no harm in giving non-VHE a go for comparison, but I 
>> wouldn't be surprised if it turns out even slower...
> 
> You're totally right, with nvhe mode, it's still the same slow speed.
> 
> BTW, what did you mean by the "wildly different microarch"?
> Is ARMv8.2 arch that different from ARMv8 of RPI4?

I don't mean Armv8.x architectural features, I mean the actual 
implementation of NVIDIA's Carmel core is very, very different from 
Cortex-A72 or indeed our newer v8.2 Cortex-A designs.

> And any extra methods I could try to explore the reason of the slowness?

I guess the first check would be whether you're trapping and exiting the 
VM significantly more. I believe there are stats somewhere, but I don't 
know exactly where, sorry - I know very little about actually *using* KVM :)

If it's not that, then it might just be that EDK2 is doing a lot of 
cache maintenance or system register modification or some other 
operation that happens to be slower on Carmel compared to Cortex-A72.

Robin.

> At least RPI CM4 is beyond my expectation and is working pretty fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Qu
> 
>>
>> Robin.
>>
>>> BTW, this is the dmesg related to KVM on Xavier, running v5.13 
>>> upstream kernel, with 64K page size:
>>> [    0.852357] kvm [1]: IPA Size Limit: 40 bits
>>> [    0.857378] kvm [1]: vgic interrupt IRQ9
>>> [    0.862122] kvm: pmu event creation failed -2
>>> [    0.866734] kvm [1]: VHE mode initialized successfully
>>>
>>> While on CM4, the host runs v5.12.10 upstream kernel (with downstream 
>>> dtb), with 4K page size:
>>> [    1.276818] kvm [1]: IPA Size Limit: 44 bits
>>> [    1.278425] kvm [1]: vgic interrupt IRQ9
>>> [    1.278620] kvm [1]: Hyp mode initialized successfully
>>>
>>> Could it be the PAGE size causing problem?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-15 10:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-15  8:55 Any way to disable KVM VHE extension? Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  8:55 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  8:55 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  8:57 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  8:57   ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  8:57   ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  9:28 ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15  9:28   ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15  9:28   ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15  9:44   ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  9:44     ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15  9:44     ` Qu Wenruo
2021-07-15 10:00     ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2021-07-15 10:00       ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15 10:00       ` Robin Murphy
2021-07-15 10:06       ` Mark Rutland
2021-07-15 10:06         ` Mark Rutland
2021-07-15 10:06         ` Mark Rutland
2021-07-15 10:49     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 10:49       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-15 10:49       ` Marc Zyngier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6331dfe5-a028-4a71-6cc1-479003a58f47@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=wqu@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.