Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2022 02:20:19 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/9] vringh: unify the APIs for all accessors
Message-ID: <20221228021354-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20221227022528.609839-1-mie@igel.co.jp>
 <20221227022528.609839-5-mie@igel.co.jp>
 <20221227020007-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CANXvt5pRy-i7=_ikNkZPp2HcRmWZYNJYpjO_ieBJJVc90nds+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANXvt5qUUOqB1CVgAk5KyL9sV+NsnJSKhatvdV12jH5=kBjjJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221227075332-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CANXvt5qTbGi7p5Y7eVSjyHJ7MLjiMgGKyAM-LEkJZXvhtSh7vw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CANXvt5qTbGi7p5Y7eVSjyHJ7MLjiMgGKyAM-LEkJZXvhtSh7vw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:24:10AM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote:
> 2022年12月27日(火) 23:37 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 07:22:36PM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote:
> > > 2022年12月27日(火) 16:49 Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp>:
> > > >
> > > > 2022年12月27日(火) 16:04 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 11:25:26AM +0900, Shunsuke Mie wrote:
> > > > > > Each vringh memory accessors that are for user, kern and iotlb has own
> > > > > > interfaces that calls common code. But some codes are duplicated and that
> > > > > > becomes loss extendability.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Introduce a struct vringh_ops and provide a common APIs for all accessors.
> > > > > > It can bee easily extended vringh code for new memory accessor and
> > > > > > simplified a caller code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shunsuke Mie <mie@igel.co.jp>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 667 +++++++++++------------------------------
> > > > > >  include/linux/vringh.h | 100 +++---
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 225 insertions(+), 542 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > > > > > index aa3cd27d2384..ebfd3644a1a3 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > > > > > @@ -35,15 +35,12 @@ static __printf(1,2) __cold void vringh_bad(const char *fmt, ...)
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  /* Returns vring->num if empty, -ve on error. */
> > > > > > -static inline int __vringh_get_head(const struct vringh *vrh,
> > > > > > -                                 int (*getu16)(const struct vringh *vrh,
> > > > > > -                                               u16 *val, const __virtio16 *p),
> > > > > > -                                 u16 *last_avail_idx)
> > > > > > +static inline int __vringh_get_head(const struct vringh *vrh, u16 *last_avail_idx)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       u16 avail_idx, i, head;
> > > > > >       int err;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -     err = getu16(vrh, &avail_idx, &vrh->vring.avail->idx);
> > > > > > +     err = vrh->ops.getu16(vrh, &avail_idx, &vrh->vring.avail->idx);
> > > > > >       if (err) {
> > > > > >               vringh_bad("Failed to access avail idx at %p",
> > > > > >                          &vrh->vring.avail->idx);
> > > > >
> > > > > I like that this patch removes more lines of code than it adds.
> > > > >
> > > > > However one of the design points of vringh abstractions is that they were
> > > > > carefully written to be very low overhead.
> > > > > This is why we are passing function pointers to inline functions -
> > > > > compiler can optimize that out.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that introducing ops indirect functions calls here is going to break
> > > > > these assumptions and hurt performance.
> > > > > Unless compiler can somehow figure it out and optimize?
> > > > > I don't see how it's possible with ops pointer in memory
> > > > > but maybe I'm wrong.
> > > > I think your concern is correct. I have to understand the compiler
> > > > optimization and redesign this approach If it is needed.
> > > > > Was any effort taken to test effect of these patches on performance?
> > > > I just tested vringh_test and already faced little performance reduction.
> > > > I have to investigate that, as you said.
> > > I attempted to test with perf. I found that the performance of patched code
> > > is almost the same as the upstream one. However, I have to investigate way
> > > this patch leads to this result, also the profiling should be run on
> > > more powerful
> > > machines too.
> > >
> > > environment:
> > > $ grep 'model name' /proc/cpuinfo
> > > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz
> > > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz
> > > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz
> > > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-7020U CPU @ 2.30GHz
> > >
> > > results:
> > > * for patched code
> > >  Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_patched
> > > --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh --indirect --virtio-1' (20 runs):
> > >
> > >           3,028.05 msec task-clock                #    0.995 CPUs
> > > utilized            ( +-  0.12% )
> > >             78,150      context-switches          #   25.691 K/sec
> > >                ( +-  0.00% )
> > >                  5      cpu-migrations            #    1.644 /sec
> > >                ( +-  3.33% )
> > >                190      page-faults               #   62.461 /sec
> > >                ( +-  0.41% )
> > >      6,919,025,222      cycles                    #    2.275 GHz
> > >                ( +-  0.13% )
> > >      8,990,220,160      instructions              #    1.29  insn per
> > > cycle           ( +-  0.04% )
> > >      1,788,326,786      branches                  #  587.899 M/sec
> > >                ( +-  0.05% )
> > >          4,557,398      branch-misses             #    0.25% of all
> > > branches          ( +-  0.43% )
> > >
> > >            3.04359 +- 0.00378 seconds time elapsed  ( +-  0.12% )
> > >
> > > * for upstream code
> > >  Performance counter stats for 'nice -n -20 ./vringh_test_base
> > > --parallel --eventidx --fast-vringh --indirect --virtio-1' (10 runs):
> > >
> > >           3,058.41 msec task-clock                #    0.999 CPUs
> > > utilized            ( +-  0.14% )
> > >             78,149      context-switches          #   25.545 K/sec
> > >                ( +-  0.00% )
> > >                  5      cpu-migrations            #    1.634 /sec
> > >                ( +-  2.67% )
> > >                194      page-faults               #   63.414 /sec
> > >                ( +-  0.43% )
> > >      6,988,713,963      cycles                    #    2.284 GHz
> > >                ( +-  0.14% )
> > >      8,512,533,269      instructions              #    1.22  insn per
> > > cycle           ( +-  0.04% )
> > >      1,638,375,371      branches                  #  535.549 M/sec
> > >                ( +-  0.05% )
> > >          4,428,866      branch-misses             #    0.27% of all
> > > branches          ( +- 22.57% )
> > >
> > >            3.06085 +- 0.00420 seconds time elapsed  ( +-  0.14% )
> >
> >
> > How you compiled it also matters. ATM we don't enable retpolines
> > and it did not matter since we didn't have indirect calls,
> > but we should. Didn't yet investigate how to do that for virtio tools.
> I think the retpolines certainly affect performance. Thank you for pointing
> it out. I'd like to start the investigation that how to apply the
> retpolines to the
> virtio tools.
> > > > Thank you for your comments.
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Shunsuke.

This isn't all that trivial if we want this at runtime.
But compile time is kind of easy.
See Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst


-- 
MST