From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:09:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20191202230948.GI31681@xz-x1> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20191202215049.GB8120@linux.intel.com> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 01:50:49PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:16:40PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 12:10:36PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:34:54PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > Currently, we have N+1 rings for each VM of N vcpus: > > > > > > > > - for each vcpu, we have 1 per-vcpu dirty ring, > > > > - for each vm, we have 1 per-vm dirty ring > > > > > > Why? I assume the purpose of per-vcpu rings is to avoid contention between > > > threads, but the motiviation needs to be explicitly stated. And why is a > > > per-vm fallback ring needed? > > > > Yes, as explained in previous reply, the problem is there could have > > guest memory writes without vcpu contexts. > > > > > > > > If my assumption is correct, have other approaches been tried/profiled? > > > E.g. using cmpxchg to reserve N number of entries in a shared ring. > > > > Not yet, but I'd be fine to try anything if there's better > > alternatives. Besides, could you help explain why sharing one ring > > and let each vcpu to reserve a region in the ring could be helpful in > > the pov of performance? > > The goal would be to avoid taking a lock, or at least to avoid holding a > lock for an extended duration, e.g. some sort of multi-step process where > entries in the ring are first reserved, then filled, and finally marked > valid. That'd allow the "fill" action to be done in parallel. Considering that per-vcpu ring should be no worst than this, so iiuc you prefer a single per-vm ring here, which is without per-vcpu ring. However I don't see a good reason to split a per-vm resource into per-vcpu manually somehow, instead of using the per-vcpu structure directly like what this series does... Or could you show me what I've missed? IMHO it's really a natural thought that we should use kvm_vcpu to split the ring as long as we still want to make it in parallel of the vcpus. > > In case it isn't clear, I haven't thought through an actual solution :-). Feel free to shoot when the ideas come. :) I'd be glad to test your idea, especially where it could be better! > > My point is that I think it's worth exploring and profiling other > implementations because the dual per-vm and per-vcpu rings has a few warts > that we'd be stuck with forever. I do agree that the interface could be a bit awkward to keep these two rings. Besides this, do you still have other concerns? And when you say about profiling, I hope I understand it right that it should be something unrelated to this specific issue that we're discussing (say, on whether to use per-vm ring, or per-vm + per-vcpu rings) because for performance imho it's really the layout of the ring that could matter more, and how the ring is shared and accessed between the userspace and kernel. For current implementation (I'm not sure whether that's initial version from Lei, or Paolo, anyway...), IMHO it's good enough from perf pov in that it at least supports: (1) zero copy (2) complete async model (3) per-vcpu isolations None of these is there for KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG. Not to mention that tracking dirty bits are not really that "performance critical" - if you see in QEMU we have plenty of ways to explicitly turn down the CPU like cpu-throttle, just because dirtying pages and even with the whole tracking overhead is too fast already even using KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG, and the slow thing is QEMU when collecting and sending the pages! :) > > > > IMO, > > > adding kvm_get_running_vcpu() is a hack that is just asking for future > > > abuse and the vcpu/vm/as_id interactions in mark_page_dirty_in_ring() > > > look extremely fragile. > > > > I agree. Another way is to put heavier traffic to the per-vm ring, > > but the downside could be that the per-vm ring could get full easier > > (but I haven't tested). > > There's nothing that prevents increasing the size of the common ring each > time a new vCPU is added. Alternatively, userspace could explicitly > request or hint the desired ring size. Yeah I don't have strong opinion on this, but I just don't see it greatly helpful to explicitly expose this API to userspace. IMHO for now a global ring size should be good enough. If userspace wants to make it fast, the ring can hardly gets full (because the collection of the dirty ring can be really, really fast if the userspace wants). > > > > I also dislike having two different mechanisms > > > for accessing the ring (lock for per-vm, something else for per-vcpu). > > > > Actually I proposed to drop the per-vm ring (actually I had a version > > that implemented this.. and I just changed it back to the per-vm ring > > later on, see below) and when there's no vcpu context I thought about: > > > > (1) use vcpu0 ring > > > > (2) or a better algo to pick up a per-vcpu ring (like, the less full > > ring, we can do many things here, e.g., we can easily maintain a > > structure track this so we can get O(1) search, I think) > > > > I discussed this with Paolo, but I think Paolo preferred the per-vm > > ring because there's no good reason to choose vcpu0 as what (1) > > suggested. While if to choose (2) we probably need to lock even for > > per-cpu ring, so could be a bit slower. > > Ya, per-vm is definitely better than dumping on vcpu0. I'm hoping we can > find a third option that provides comparable performance without using any > per-vcpu rings. I'm still uncertain on whether it's a good idea to drop the per-vcpu ring (as stated above). But I'm still open to any further thoughts as long as I can start to understand when the only-per-vm ring would be better. Thanks! -- Peter Xu
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 121+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-11-29 21:34 [PATCH RFC 00/15] KVM: Dirty ring interface Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 01/15] KVM: Move running VCPU from ARM to common code Peter Xu 2019-12-03 19:01 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-04 9:42 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-09 22:05 ` Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 02/15] KVM: Add kvm/vcpu argument to mark_dirty_page_in_slot Peter Xu 2019-12-02 19:32 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-02 20:49 ` Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 03/15] KVM: Add build-time error check on kvm_run size Peter Xu 2019-12-02 19:30 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-02 20:53 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-02 22:19 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-02 22:40 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-03 5:50 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-03 13:41 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-03 17:04 ` Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking Peter Xu 2019-12-02 20:10 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-02 21:16 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-02 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-02 23:09 ` Peter Xu [this message] 2019-12-03 13:48 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-03 18:46 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-04 10:05 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-07 0:29 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-09 9:37 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-09 21:54 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-10 10:07 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-10 15:52 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-10 17:09 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-15 17:21 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-16 10:08 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-16 18:54 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-17 9:01 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-17 16:24 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-17 16:28 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-18 21:58 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-18 22:24 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-18 22:37 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-18 22:49 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-17 2:28 ` Tian, Kevin 2019-12-17 16:18 ` Alex Williamson 2019-12-17 16:30 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-18 0:29 ` Tian, Kevin [not found] ` <AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D19D645E5F@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> 2019-12-17 5:17 ` Tian, Kevin 2019-12-17 5:25 ` Yan Zhao 2019-12-17 16:24 ` Alex Williamson 2019-12-03 19:13 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-04 10:14 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-04 14:33 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-04 10:38 ` Jason Wang 2019-12-04 11:04 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-04 19:52 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-05 6:51 ` Jason Wang 2019-12-05 12:08 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-05 13:12 ` Jason Wang 2019-12-10 13:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-10 13:31 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-10 16:02 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-10 21:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-11 9:05 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-11 13:04 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-11 14:54 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-10 21:48 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-11 12:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-11 14:14 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-11 20:59 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-11 22:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-12 0:08 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-12 7:36 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-12 8:12 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-12 10:38 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-15 17:33 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-16 9:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-16 15:07 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-16 15:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2019-12-16 15:47 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-11 17:24 ` Christophe de Dinechin 2019-12-13 20:23 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-14 7:57 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-14 16:26 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-16 9:29 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-16 15:26 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-16 15:31 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-16 15:43 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-17 12:16 ` Christophe de Dinechin 2019-12-17 12:19 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-17 15:38 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-17 16:31 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-17 16:42 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-17 16:48 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-17 19:41 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-18 0:33 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-18 16:32 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-18 16:41 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-20 18:19 ` Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 05/15] KVM: Make dirty ring exclusive to dirty bitmap log Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 06/15] KVM: Introduce dirty ring wait queue Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 07/15] KVM: X86: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 08/15] KVM: selftests: Always clear dirty bitmap after iteration Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:34 ` [PATCH RFC 09/15] KVM: selftests: Sync uapi/linux/kvm.h to tools/ Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:35 ` [PATCH RFC 10/15] KVM: selftests: Use a single binary for dirty/clear log test Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:35 ` [PATCH RFC 11/15] KVM: selftests: Introduce after_vcpu_run hook for dirty " Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:35 ` [PATCH RFC 12/15] KVM: selftests: Add dirty ring buffer test Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:35 ` [PATCH RFC 13/15] KVM: selftests: Let dirty_log_test async for dirty ring test Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:35 ` [PATCH RFC 14/15] KVM: selftests: Add "-c" parameter to dirty log test Peter Xu 2019-11-29 21:35 ` [PATCH RFC 15/15] KVM: selftests: Test dirty ring waitqueue Peter Xu 2019-11-30 8:29 ` [PATCH RFC 00/15] KVM: Dirty ring interface Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-02 2:13 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-03 13:59 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-05 19:30 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-05 19:59 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-05 20:52 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-02 20:21 ` Sean Christopherson 2019-12-02 20:43 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-04 10:39 ` Jason Wang 2019-12-04 19:33 ` Peter Xu 2019-12-05 6:49 ` Jason Wang 2019-12-11 13:41 ` Christophe de Dinechin 2019-12-11 14:16 ` Paolo Bonzini 2019-12-11 17:15 ` Peter Xu
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=20191202230948.GI31681@xz-x1 \ --to=peterx@redhat.com \ --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \ --cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \ --cc=vkuznets@redhat.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
KVM Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/0 kvm/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 kvm kvm/ https://lore.kernel.org/kvm \ kvm@vger.kernel.org public-inbox-index kvm Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.kvm AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git