Thread (55 messages) 55 messages, 10 authors, 2015-03-09
STALE4142d

[RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] arm64: KVM: work around incoherency with uncached guest mappings

From: Christoffer Dall <hidden>
Date: 2015-03-02 16:31:46
Also in: kvm, kvmarm

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 05:47:19PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 24 February 2015 at 14:55, Andrew Jones [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 02:37:25PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
quoted
On 20 February 2015 at 14:29, Andrew Jones [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
So looks like the 3 orders of magnitude greater number of traps
(only to el2) don't impact kernel compiles.
OK, good! That was what I was hoping for, obviously.
quoted
Then I thought I'd be able to quick measure the number of cycles
a trap to el2 takes with this kvm-unit-tests test

int main(void)
{
        unsigned long start, end;
        unsigned int sctlr;

        asm volatile(
        "       mrs %0, sctlr_el1\n"
        "       msr pmcr_el0, %1\n"
        : "=&r" (sctlr) : "r" (5));

        asm volatile(
        "       mrs %0, pmccntr_el0\n"
        "       msr sctlr_el1, %2\n"
        "       mrs %1, pmccntr_el0\n"
        : "=&r" (start), "=&r" (end) : "r" (sctlr));

        printf("%llx\n", end - start);
        return 0;
}

after applying this patch to kvm
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
index bb91b6fc63861..5de39d740aa58 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
@@ -770,7 +770,7 @@

        mrs     x2, mdcr_el2
        and     x2, x2, #MDCR_EL2_HPMN_MASK
-       orr     x2, x2, #(MDCR_EL2_TPM | MDCR_EL2_TPMCR)
+//     orr     x2, x2, #(MDCR_EL2_TPM | MDCR_EL2_TPMCR)
        orr     x2, x2, #(MDCR_EL2_TDRA | MDCR_EL2_TDOSA)

        // Check for KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY, and set debug to trap
But I get zero for the cycle count. Not sure what I'm missing.
No clue tbh. Does the counter work as expected in the host?
Guess not. I dropped the test into a module_init and inserted
it on the host. Always get zero for pmccntr_el0 reads. Or, if
I set it to something non-zero with a write, then I always get
that back - no increments. pmcr_el0 looks OK... I had forgotten
to set bit 31 of pmcntenset_el0, but doing that still doesn't
help. Anyway, I assume the problem is me. I'll keep looking to
see what I'm missing.
I returned to this and see that the problem was indeed me. I needed yet
another enable bit set (the filter register needed to be instructed to
count cycles while in el2). I've attached the code for the curious.
The numbers are mean=6999, std_dev=242. Run on the host, or in a guest
running on a host without this patch series (after TVM traps have been
disabled), I get a pretty consistent 40.

I checked how many vm-sysreg traps we do during the kernel compile
benchmark. It's 124924. So it's a bit strange that we don't see the
benchmark taking 10 to 20 seconds longer on average. I should probably
double check my runs. In any case, while I like the approach of this
series, the overhead is looking non-negligible.
Thanks a lot for producing these numbers. 125k x 7k == <1 billion
cycles == <1 second on a >1 GHz machine, I think?
Or am I missing something? How long does the actual compile take?
I ran a sequence of benchmarks that I occasionally run (pbzip,
kernbench, and hackbench) and I also saw < 1% performance degradation,
so I think we can trust that somewhat.  (I can post the raw numbers when
I have ssh access to my Linux desktop - sending this from Somewhere Over
The Atlantic).

However, my concern with these patches are on two points:

1. It's not a fix-all.  We still have the case where the guest expects
the behavior of device memory (for strong ordering for example) on a RAM
region, which we now break.  Similiarly this doesn't support the
non-coherent DMA to RAM region case.

2. While the code is probably as nice as this kind of stuff gets, it
is non-trivial and extremely difficult to debug.  The counter-point here
is that we may end up handling other stuff@EL2 for performanc reasons
in the future.

Mainly because of point 1 above, I am leaning to thinking userspace
should do the invalidation when it knows it needs to, either through KVM
via a memslot flag or through some other syscall mechanism.

Thanks,
-Christoffer
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help