Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1618653 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> - 2017-04-07 12:10 +0200
    RE: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on "Sun, Ning" <ning.sun@intel.com> - 2017-04-08 00:00 +0200

#1618653 — Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 12:19:28PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:50:55AM -0400, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:49:00AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > Hi Shaohua,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:37:51AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast networking
> > > > workloads. This is a limitation in hardware based on our observation, so
> > > > we'd like to disable the IOMMU force on, but we do want to use TBOOT and
> > > > we can sacrifice the DMA security bought by IOMMU. I must admit I know
> > > > nothing about TBOOT, but TBOOT guys (cc-ed) think not eabling IOMMU is
> > > > totally ok.
> > > 
> > > Can you elaborate a bit more on the setup where the IOMMU still harms
> > > network performance? With the recent scalability improvements I measured
> > > only a minimal impact on 10GBit networking.
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is almost unaware, but
> > it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysis) which kills the performance. We
> > observed the same performance issue even with software passthrough (identity
> > mapping), only the hardware passthrough survives. The pps with iommu (with
> > software passthrough) is only about ~30% of that without it.
> 
> Any update on this?

An explicit Ack from the tboot guys would be good to have.


	Joerg

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1619131

Hi Shaohua,

One question, did you still see the network performance penalty when Linux kernel cmdline intel_iommu was set to off ( intel_iommu=off) ?

Thanks,
-ning

-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:jroedel@suse.de] 
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 3:09 AM
To: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wei, Gang <gang.wei@intel.com>; hpa@linux.intel.com; mingo@kernel.org; kernel-team@fb.com; Sun, Ning <ning.sun@intel.com>; srihan@fb.com; Eydelberg, Alex <alex.eydelberg@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 12:19:28PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:50:55AM -0400, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:49:00AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > Hi Shaohua,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:37:51AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast 
> > > > networking workloads. This is a limitation in hardware based on 
> > > > our observation, so we'd like to disable the IOMMU force on, but 
> > > > we do want to use TBOOT and we can sacrifice the DMA security 
> > > > bought by IOMMU. I must admit I know nothing about TBOOT, but 
> > > > TBOOT guys (cc-ed) think not eabling IOMMU is totally ok.
> > > 
> > > Can you elaborate a bit more on the setup where the IOMMU still 
> > > harms network performance? With the recent scalability 
> > > improvements I measured only a minimal impact on 10GBit networking.
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is almost 
> > unaware, but it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysis) which kills 
> > the performance. We observed the same performance issue even with 
> > software passthrough (identity mapping), only the hardware 
> > passthrough survives. The pps with iommu (with software passthrough) is only about ~30% of that without it.
> 
> Any update on this?

An explicit Ack from the tboot guys would be good to have.


	Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web