Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/8] Add IOPF support for VFIO passthrough

On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:37:21 +0800
Shenming Lu [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Alex,

On 2021/5/19 2:57, Alex Williamson wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:44:12 +0800
Shenming Lu [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

Hi,

Requesting for your comments and suggestions. :-)

The static pinning and mapping problem in VFIO and possible solutions
have been discussed a lot [1, 2]. One of the solutions is to add I/O
Page Fault support for VFIO devices. Different from those relatively
complicated software approaches such as presenting a vIOMMU that provides
the DMA buffer information (might include para-virtualized optimizations),
IOPF mainly depends on the hardware faulting capability, such as the PCIe
PRI extension or Arm SMMU stall model. What's more, the IOPF support in
the IOMMU driver has already been implemented in SVA [3]. So we add IOPF
support for VFIO passthrough based on the IOPF part of SVA in this series.  

The SVA proposals are being reworked to make use of a new IOASID
object, it's not clear to me that this shouldn't also make use of that
work as it does a significant expansion of the type1 IOMMU with fault
handlers that would duplicate new work using that new model.  

It seems that the IOASID extension for guest SVA would not affect this series,
will we do any host-guest IOASID translation in the VFIO fault handler?

Surely it will, we don't currently have any IOMMU fault handling or
forwarding of IOMMU faults through to the vfio bus driver, both of
those would be included in an IOASID implementation.  I think Jason's
vision is to use IOASID to deprecate type1 for all use cases, so even
if we were to choose to implement IOPF in type1 we should agree on
common interfaces with IOASID.
 

quoted

quoted

We have measured its performance with UADK [4] (passthrough an accelerator
to a VM(1U16G)) on Hisilicon Kunpeng920 board (and compared with host SVA):

Run hisi_sec_test...
 - with varying sending times and message lengths
 - with/without IOPF enabled (speed slowdown)

when msg_len = 1MB (and PREMAP_LEN (in Patch 4) = 1):
            slowdown (num of faults)
 times      VFIO IOPF      host SVA
 1          63.4% (518)    82.8% (512)
 100        22.9% (1058)   47.9% (1024)
 1000       2.6% (1071)    8.5% (1024)

when msg_len = 10MB (and PREMAP_LEN = 512):
            slowdown (num of faults)
 times      VFIO IOPF
 1          32.6% (13)
 100        3.5% (26)
 1000       1.6% (26)  

It seems like this is only an example that you can make a benchmark
show anything you want.  The best results would be to pre-map
everything, which is what we have without this series.  What is an
acceptable overhead to incur to avoid page pinning?  What if userspace
had more fine grained control over which mappings were available for
faulting and which were statically mapped?  I don't really see what
sense the pre-mapping range makes.  If I assume the user is QEMU in a
non-vIOMMU configuration, pre-mapping the beginning of each RAM section
doesn't make any logical sense relative to device DMA.  

As you said in Patch 4, we can introduce full end-to-end functionality
before trying to improve performance, and I will drop the pre-mapping patch
in the current stage...

Is there a need that userspace wants more fine grained control over which
mappings are available for faulting? If so, we may evolve the MAP ioctl
to support for specifying the faulting range.

You're essentially enabling this for a vfio bus driver via patch 7/8,
pinning for selective DMA faulting.  How would a driver in userspace
make equivalent requests?  In the case of performance, the user could
mlock the page but they have no mechanism here to pre-fault it.  Should
they?

As for the overhead of IOPF, it is unavoidable if enabling on-demand paging
(and page faults occur almost only when first accessing), and it seems that
there is a large optimization space compared to CPU page faulting.

Yes, there's of course going to be overhead in terms of latency for the
page faults.  My point was more that when a host is not under memory
pressure we should trend towards the performance of pinned, static
mappings and we should be able to create arbitrarily large pre-fault
behavior to show that.  But I think what we really want to enable via
IOPF is density, right?  Therefore how many more assigned device guests
can you run on a host with IOPF?  How does the slope, plateau, and
inflection point of their aggregate throughput compare to static
pinning?  VM startup time is probably also a useful metric, ie. trading
device latency for startup latency.  Thanks,

Alex