> -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 7:05 AM > To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) > <longpe...@huawei.com> > Cc: phi...@redhat.com; pbonz...@redhat.com; marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com; > m...@redhat.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Gonglei (Arei) > <arei.gong...@huawei.com>; chenjiashang <chenjiash...@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/9] vfio: defer to commit kvm irq routing when enable > msi/msix > > On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 07:02:02 +0800 > "Longpeng(Mike)" <longpe...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > In migration resume phase, all unmasked msix vectors need to be > > setup when load the VF state. However, the setup operation would > > s/load/loading/ > > > take longer if the VM has more VFs and each VF has more unmasked > > vectors. > > > > The hot spot is kvm_irqchip_commit_routes, it'll scan and update > > all irqfds that already assigned each invocation, so more vectors > > s/that/that are/ > > > means need more time to process them. > > > > vfio_pci_load_config > > vfio_msix_enable > > msix_set_vector_notifiers > > for (vector = 0; vector < dev->msix_entries_nr; vector++) { > > vfio_msix_vector_do_use > > vfio_add_kvm_msi_virq > > kvm_irqchip_commit_routes <-- expensive > > } > > > > We can reduce the cost by only commit once outside the loop. The > > s/commit/committing/ > OK, will fix in the next version, thanks. > > routes is cached in kvm_state, we commit them first and then bind > > s/is/are/ > OK. > > irqfd for each vector. > > > > The test VM has 128 vcpus and 8 VF (each one has 65 vectors), > > we measure the cost of the vfio_msix_enable for each VF, and > > we can see 90+% costs can be reduce. > > > > VF Count of irqfds[*] Original With this patch > > > > 1st 65 8 2 > > 2nd 130 15 2 > > 3rd 195 22 2 > > 4th 260 24 3 > > 5th 325 36 2 > > 6th 390 44 3 > > 7th 455 51 3 > > 8th 520 58 4 > > Total 258ms 21ms > > > > [*] Count of irqfds > > How many irqfds that already assigned and need to process in this > > round. > > > > The optimition can be applied to msi type too. > > s/optimition/optimization/ > OK, thanks. > > > > Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpe...@huawei.com> > > --- > > hw/vfio/pci.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c > > index 2de1cc5425..b26129bddf 100644 > > --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c > > +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c > > @@ -513,11 +513,13 @@ static int vfio_msix_vector_do_use(PCIDevice *pdev, > unsigned int nr, > > * increase them as needed. > > */ > > if (vdev->nr_vectors < nr + 1) { > > - vfio_disable_irqindex(&vdev->vbasedev, VFIO_PCI_MSIX_IRQ_INDEX); > > vdev->nr_vectors = nr + 1; > > - ret = vfio_enable_vectors(vdev, true); > > - if (ret) { > > - error_report("vfio: failed to enable vectors, %d", ret); > > + if (!vdev->defer_kvm_irq_routing) { > > + vfio_disable_irqindex(&vdev->vbasedev, > VFIO_PCI_MSIX_IRQ_INDEX); > > + ret = vfio_enable_vectors(vdev, true); > > + if (ret) { > > + error_report("vfio: failed to enable vectors, %d", ret); > > + } > > } > > } else { > > Error *err = NULL; > > @@ -579,8 +581,7 @@ static void vfio_msix_vector_release(PCIDevice *pdev, > unsigned int nr) > > } > > } > > > > -/* TODO: invoked when enclabe msi/msix vectors */ > > -static __attribute__((unused)) void vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq(VFIOPCIDevice > *vdev) > > +static void vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev) > > { > > int i; > > VFIOMSIVector *vector; > > @@ -610,6 +611,9 @@ static __attribute__((unused)) void > vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev > > > > static void vfio_msix_enable(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev) > > { > > + PCIDevice *pdev = &vdev->pdev; > > + int ret; > > + > > vfio_disable_interrupts(vdev); > > > > vdev->msi_vectors = g_new0(VFIOMSIVector, vdev->msix->entries); > > @@ -632,11 +636,22 @@ static void vfio_msix_enable(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev) > > vfio_msix_vector_do_use(&vdev->pdev, 0, NULL, NULL); > > vfio_msix_vector_release(&vdev->pdev, 0); > > > > - if (msix_set_vector_notifiers(&vdev->pdev, vfio_msix_vector_use, > > - vfio_msix_vector_release, NULL)) { > > A comment would be useful here, maybe something like: > > /* > * Setting vector notifiers triggers synchronous vector-use > * callbacks for each active vector. Deferring to commit the KVM > * routes once rather than per vector provides a substantial > * performance improvement. > */ > Will add in the next version. > > + vdev->defer_kvm_irq_routing = true; > > + > > + ret = msix_set_vector_notifiers(&vdev->pdev, vfio_msix_vector_use, > > + vfio_msix_vector_release, NULL); > > + if (ret < 0) { > > error_report("vfio: msix_set_vector_notifiers failed"); > > + } else if (!pdev->msix_function_masked) { > > + vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq(vdev); > > + vfio_disable_irqindex(&vdev->vbasedev, VFIO_PCI_MSIX_IRQ_INDEX); > > Couldn't we also optimize the do_use/release on vector 0 above to avoid > this gratuitous disable here? We only want to make sure MSIX is always The disable here seems can be removed directly, because we already disable interrupts at the beginning of the vfio_msix_enable() ? > enabled on the device when we exit this function, so maybe that code > becomes an "else" branch below? > Do you mean something like: if (ret < 0) { .... } else if (!pdev->msix_function_masked) { .... ret = vfio_enable_vectors(vdev, true); .... } else { /* do_use/release on vector 0 */ } We'll get '-EINVAL' if invoke vfio_enable_vectors with vdev->nr_vectors=0, this cannot happen before but it can now in this way. So maybe the "else if" conditional expression should be convert to "!pdev->msix_function_masked && vdev->nr_vectors" ? > > + ret = vfio_enable_vectors(vdev, true); > > + if (ret) { > > + error_report("vfio: failed to enable vectors, %d", ret); > > + } > > } > > > > + vdev->defer_kvm_irq_routing = false; > > trace_vfio_msix_enable(vdev->vbasedev.name); > > } > > > > @@ -645,6 +660,7 @@ static void vfio_msi_enable(VFIOPCIDevice *vdev) > > int ret, i; > > > > vfio_disable_interrupts(vdev); > > + vdev->defer_kvm_irq_routing = true; > > > > vdev->nr_vectors = msi_nr_vectors_allocated(&vdev->pdev); > > retry: > > @@ -671,6 +687,8 @@ retry: > > vfio_add_kvm_msi_virq(vdev, vector, i, false); > > } > > > > + vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq(vdev); > > + > > /* Set interrupt type prior to possible interrupts */ > > vdev->interrupt = VFIO_INT_MSI; > > > > @@ -697,9 +715,11 @@ retry: > > */ > > error_report("vfio: Error: Failed to enable MSI"); > > > > + vdev->defer_kvm_irq_routing = false; > > return; > > } > > > > + vdev->defer_kvm_irq_routing = false; > > Why wouldn't we clear the flag in vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq()? It > almost feels like there should be a vfio_prepare_kvm_msi_virq_batch() > that enables the flag and an unconditional > vfio_commit_kvm_msi_virq_batch() that clears the flag and decides if > further work is necessary. Thanks, > > Alex > > > trace_vfio_msi_enable(vdev->vbasedev.name, vdev->nr_vectors); > > } > >
RE: [PATCH v3 9/9] vfio: defer to commit kvm irq routing when enable msi/msix
Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) Tue, 05 Oct 2021 06:11:23 -0700
- Re: [PATCH v3 ... Alex Williamson
- RE: [PATC... Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
