Re: [PATCH] MMIO should have more priority then IO

From: Nadav Amit
Date: Fri Jul 08 2022 - 14:35:56 EST

On Jul 8, 2022, at 10:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ⚠ External Email
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 04:45:00PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2022, at 5:56 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> And looking at the results above, it's not so much the PIO vs MMIO
>>> that makes a difference, it's the virtualisation. A mmio access goes
>>> from 269ns to 85us. Rather than messing around with preferring MMIO
>>> over PIO for config space, having an "enlightenment" to do config
>>> space accesses would be a more profitable path.
>> I am unfamiliar with the motivation for this patch, but I just wanted to
>> briefly regard the advice about enlightments.
>> “enlightenment”, AFAIK, is Microsoft’s term for "para-virtualization", so
>> let’s regard the generic term. I think that you consider the bare-metal
>> results as the possible results from a paravirtual machine, which is mostly
>> wrong. Para-virtualization usually still requires a VM-exit and for the most
>> part the hypervisor/host runs similar code for MMIO/hypercall (conceptually;
>> the code of paravirtual and fully-virtual devices is often different, but
>> IIUC, this is not what Ajay measured).
>> Para-virtualization could have *perhaps* helped to reduce the number of
>> PIO/MMIO and improve performance this way. If, for instance, all the
>> PIO/MMIO are done during initialization, a paravirtual interface can be use
>> to batch them together, and that would help. But it is more complicated to
>> get a performance benefit from paravirtualization if the PIO/MMIO accesses
>> are “spread”, for instance, done after each interrupt.
> What kind of lousy programming interface requires you to do a config
> space access after every interrupt? This is looney-tunes.

Wild example, hence the “for instance”.

> You've used a lot of words to not answer the question that was so
> important that I asked it twice. What's the use case, what's the
> workload that would benefit from this patch?

Well, you used a lot of words to say “it causes problems” without saying
which. It appeared you have misconceptions about paravirtualization that
I wanted to correct.

As I said before, I am not familiar with the exact motivation for this
patch. I now understood from Ajay that it shortens VM boot time

I was talking to Ajay to see if there is a possibility of a VMware specific
solution. I am afraid that init_hypervisor_platform() might take place too