[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Performance regression using KVM/ARM

From: Auger Eric
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Performance regression using KVM/ARM
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:53:53 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0


Le 22/04/2016 à 12:15, Christoffer Dall a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:06:52PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 04/22/2016 12:01 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 09:50:05PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 21.04.16 18:23, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Commit 9fac18f (oslib: allocate PROT_NONE pages on top of RAM,
>>>>> 2015-09-10) had the unfortunate side effect that memory slots registered
>>>>> with KVM no longer contain a userspace address that is aligned to a 2M
>>>>> boundary, causing the use of THP to fail in the kernel.
>>>>> I fail to see where in the QEMU code we should be asking for a 2M
>>>>> alignment of our memory region.  Can someone help pointing me to the
>>>>> right place to fix this or suggest a patch?
>>>>> This causes a performance regssion of hackbench on KVM/ARM of about 62%
>>>>> compared to the workload running with THP.
>>>>> We have verified that this is indeed the cause of the failure by adding
>>>>> various prints to QEMU and the kernel, but unfortunatley my QEMU
>>>>> knowledge is not sufficient for me to fix it myself.
>>>>> Any help would be much appreciated!
>>>> The code changed quite heavily since I last looked at it, but could you
>>>> please try whether the (untested) patch below makes a difference?
>>> Unfortunately this doesn't make any difference.  It feels to me like
>>> we're missing specifying a 2M alignemnt in QEMU somewhere, but I can't
>>> properly understand the links between the actual allocation, registering
>>> mem slots with the KVM part of QEMU, and actually setting up KVM user
>>> memory regions.
>>> What has to happen is that the resulting struct
>>> kvm_userspace_memory_region() has the same alignment offset from 2M (the
>>> huge page size) of the ->guest_phys_addr and ->userspace-addr fields.
>> Well, I would expect that the guest address space is always very big
>> aligned - and definitely at least 2MB - so we're safe there.
>> That means we only need to align the qemu virtual address. There
>> used to be a memalign() call for that, but it got replaced with
>> direct mmap() and then a lot of code changed on top. Looking at the
>> logs, I'm sure Paolo knows the answer though :)
> Peter just pointed me to a change I remember doing for ARM, so perhaps
> this fix is the right one?
As shared with Christoffer, the patch below also alters multiple vfio
platform device assignment (outcome of a bisect). I guess this relates
to the GPA allocation on the platform bus but I need to further
investigate. I plan to work on a QEMU fix this week.


> diff --git a/util/oslib-posix.c b/util/oslib-posix.c
> index d25f671..a36e734 100644
> --- a/util/oslib-posix.c
> +++ b/util/oslib-posix.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
>  extern int daemon(int, int);
>  #endif
> -#if defined(__linux__) && (defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__arm__))
> +#if defined(__linux__) && (defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__arm__)) || 
> defined(__aarch64__)
>     /* Use 2 MiB alignment so transparent hugepages can be used by KVM.
>        Valgrind does not support alignments larger than 1 MiB,
>        therefore we need special code which handles running on Valgrind. */
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]