[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RFC PATCH] arm/kvm: Enable support for KVM_CAP_ARM_EAGER_SPLIT_CHUN
From: |
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi |
Subject: |
RE: [RFC PATCH] arm/kvm: Enable support for KVM_CAP_ARM_EAGER_SPLIT_CHUNK_SIZE |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Aug 2023 07:26:15 +0000 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Shan [mailto:gshan@redhat.com]
> Sent: 07 August 2023 06:53
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>;
> qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-arm@nongnu.org
> Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org; ricarkol@google.com; kvm@vger.kernel.org;
> Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; Linuxarm
> <linuxarm@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm/kvm: Enable support for
> KVM_CAP_ARM_EAGER_SPLIT_CHUNK_SIZE
>
>
> On 7/26/23 01:00, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > Now that we have Eager Page Split support added for ARM in the kernel[0],
> > enable it in Qemu. This adds,
> > -eager-split-size to Qemu options to set the eager page split chunk size.
> > -enable KVM_CAP_ARM_EAGER_SPLIT_CHUNK_SIZE.
> >
> > The chunk size specifies how many pages to break at a time, using a
> > single allocation. Bigger the chunk size, more pages need to be
> > allocated ahead of time.
> >
> > Notes:
> > - I am not sure whether we need to call kvm_vm_check_extension() for
> > KVM_CAP_ARM_EAGER_SPLIT_CHUNK_SIZE or not as kernel seems to
> disable
> > eager page size by default and it will return zero always.
> >
> > -ToDo: Update qemu-options.hx
> >
> > [0]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/168426111477.3193133.1074810619984378093
> 0.b4-ty@linux.dev/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > include/sysemu/kvm_int.h | 1 +
> > target/arm/kvm.c | 73
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h b/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h
> > index 511b42bde5..03a1660d40 100644
> > --- a/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h
> > +++ b/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h
> > @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ struct KVMState
> > uint64_t kvm_dirty_ring_bytes; /* Size of the per-vcpu dirty ring
> */
> > uint32_t kvm_dirty_ring_size; /* Number of dirty GFNs per ring
> */
> > bool kvm_dirty_ring_with_bitmap;
> > + uint64_t kvm_eager_split_size; /* Eager Page Splitting chunk size */
> > struct KVMDirtyRingReaper reaper;
> > NotifyVmexitOption notify_vmexit;
> > uint32_t notify_window;
> > diff --git a/target/arm/kvm.c b/target/arm/kvm.c
> > index b4c7654f49..985d901062 100644
> > --- a/target/arm/kvm.c
> > +++ b/target/arm/kvm.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> > #include "exec/address-spaces.h"
> > #include "hw/boards.h"
> > #include "hw/irq.h"
> > +#include "qapi/visitor.h"
> > #include "qemu/log.h"
> >
> > const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[] = {
> > @@ -247,6 +248,23 @@ int
> kvm_arm_get_max_vm_ipa_size(MachineState *ms, bool *fixed_ipa)
> > return ret > 0 ? ret : 40;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool kvm_arm_eager_split_size_valid(uint64_t req_size, uint32_t
> sizes)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(uint32_t) * BITS_PER_BYTE; i++) {
> > + if (!(sizes & (1 << i))) {
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (req_size == (1 << i)) {
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> > @@ -280,6 +298,21 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState
> *s)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (s->kvm_eager_split_size) {
> > + uint32_t sizes;
> > +
> > + sizes = kvm_vm_check_extension(s,
> KVM_CAP_ARM_SUPPORTED_BLOCK_SIZES);
> > + if (!sizes) {
> > + error_report("Eager Page Split not supported on host");
> > + } else if
> (!kvm_arm_eager_split_size_valid(s->kvm_eager_split_size,
> > + sizes)) {
> > + error_report("Eager Page Split requested chunk size not
> valid");
> > + } else if (kvm_vm_enable_cap(s,
> KVM_CAP_ARM_EAGER_SPLIT_CHUNK_SIZE, 0,
> > + s->kvm_eager_split_size)) {
> > + error_report("Failed to set Eager Page Split chunk size");
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > kvm_arm_init_debug(s);
> >
> > return ret;
>
> Do we really want to fail when KVM_CAP_ARM_SUPPORTED_BLOCK_SIZES
> isn't supported?
> I think the appropriate behavior is to warn and clear s->kvm_eager_split_size
> for this specific case, similar to what we are doing for
> s->kvm_dirty_ring_size
> in kvm_dirty_ring_init(). With this, the behavior is backwards compatible to
> the
> old host kernels.
Ok. That makes sense. Will update.
Thanks,
Shameer
>
> > @@ -1062,6 +1095,46 @@ bool
> kvm_arch_cpu_check_are_resettable(void)
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +static void kvm_arch_get_eager_split_size(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
> > + const char *name, void
> *opaque,
> > + Error **errp)
> > +{
> > + KVMState *s = KVM_STATE(obj);
> > + uint64_t value = s->kvm_eager_split_size;
> > +
> > + visit_type_size(v, name, &value, errp);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kvm_arch_set_eager_split_size(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
> > + const char *name, void
> *opaque,
> > + Error **errp)
> > +{
> > + KVMState *s = KVM_STATE(obj);
> > + uint64_t value;
> > +
> > + if (s->fd != -1) {
> > + error_setg(errp, "Cannot set properties after the accelerator has
> been initialized");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!visit_type_size(v, name, &value, errp)) {
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (value & (value - 1)) {
> > + error_setg(errp, "early-split-size must be a power of two.");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + s->kvm_eager_split_size = value;
> > +}
> > +
> > void kvm_arch_accel_class_init(ObjectClass *oc)
> > {
> > + object_class_property_add(oc, "eager-split-size", "size",
> > + kvm_arch_get_eager_split_size,
> > + kvm_arch_set_eager_split_size, NULL,
> NULL);
> > +
> > + object_class_property_set_description(oc, "eager-split-size",
> > + "Configure Eager Page Split chunk size for hugepages. (default: 0,
> disabled)");
> > }
>
> Thanks,
> Gavin