DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
@ 2014-10-20 21:58 Shivapriya Hiremath
  2014-10-20 22:39 ` Xie, Huawei
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Shivapriya Hiremath @ 2014-10-20 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev

Hi,

My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel interface
to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that iommu=pt
be set?
What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?

Thank you.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-20 21:58 [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt? Shivapriya Hiremath
@ 2014-10-20 22:39 ` Xie, Huawei
  2014-10-21  7:32   ` Alex Markuze
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Xie, Huawei @ 2014-10-20 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shivapriya Hiremath, dev



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel interface
> to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that iommu=pt
> be set?
> What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the physical address
into the descriptor.
pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> 
> Thank you.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-20 22:39 ` Xie, Huawei
@ 2014-10-21  7:32   ` Alex Markuze
  2014-10-21 16:53     ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alex Markuze @ 2014-10-21  7:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Xie, Huawei; +Cc: dev

DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
simpler VM physical address translation.
The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory access
by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this protection
comes with an extremely high performance costs for high speed nics.

To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> interface
> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> iommu=pt
> > be set?
> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the physical
> address
> into the descriptor.
> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> >
> > Thank you.
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-21  7:32   ` Alex Markuze
@ 2014-10-21 16:53     ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  2014-10-21 19:10       ` Zhou, Danny
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Shivapriya Hiremath @ 2014-10-21 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Markuze; +Cc: dev

Hi,

Thank you for all the replies.
I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> wrote:

> DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> simpler VM physical address translation.
> The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high speed
> nics.
>
> To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
>> Hiremath
>> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
>> > To: dev@dpdk.org
>> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
>> interface
>> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
>> iommu=pt
>> > be set?
>> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
>> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the physical
>> address
>> into the descriptor.
>> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
>> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
>> >
>> > Thank you.
>>
>
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-21 16:53     ` Shivapriya Hiremath
@ 2014-10-21 19:10       ` Zhou, Danny
  2014-10-22  7:35         ` alex
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Zhou, Danny @ 2014-10-21 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shivapriya Hiremath, Alex Markuze; +Cc: dev

IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really depends on how you use 
and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle boxes, which adopts 
a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the entire system including
HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors and assumed trustable, so
memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which generally adopts a "open model" 
solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant applications and VMs) which could  
direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK PMD are not trustable 
as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using physical addresses, so IOMMU 
is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of negative performance impact.

So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or OS. And if security is a major
concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security. But I do NOT think is comes with 
an extremely high performance costs according to our performance measurement, but it probably true 
for 100G NIC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> To: Alex Markuze
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for all the replies.
> I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
> repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> wrote:
> 
> > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high speed
> > nics.
> >
> > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> >> Hiremath
> >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> >> interface
> >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> >> iommu=pt
> >> > be set?
> >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the physical
> >> address
> >> into the descriptor.
> >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> >> >
> >> > Thank you.
> >>
> >
> >

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-21 19:10       ` Zhou, Danny
@ 2014-10-22  7:35         ` alex
  2014-10-22  8:53           ` Liang, Cunming
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: alex @ 2014-10-22  7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zhou, Danny; +Cc: dev

Shiva.
The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't work
as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will exists.

Danny.
The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and umap
operation for each e/ingress packet.
The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to 3Gb
with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference IFF the
rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are used
currently.


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:

> IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really depends on
> how you use
> and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle boxes,
> which adopts
> a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the entire
> system including
> HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors and
> assumed trustable, so
> memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> generally adopts a "open model"
> solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant applications
> and VMs) which could
> direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK PMD
> are not trustable
> as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> physical addresses, so IOMMU
> is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of negative
> performance impact.
>
> So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or OS. And
> if security is a major
> concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security. But I
> do NOT think is comes with
> an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> measurement, but it probably true
> for 100G NIC.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > To: Alex Markuze
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for all the replies.
> > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
> > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> wrote:
> >
> > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high
> speed
> > > nics.
> > >
> > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> > >> Hiremath
> > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> > >> interface
> > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> > >> iommu=pt
> > >> > be set?
> > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> physical
> > >> address
> > >> into the descriptor.
> > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-22  7:35         ` alex
@ 2014-10-22  8:53           ` Liang, Cunming
  2014-10-22 15:21             ` Zhou, Danny
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Liang, Cunming @ 2014-10-22  8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alex, Zhou, Danny; +Cc: dev

I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova. 
It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.

We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
And each device can attach to one domain.
It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.

Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling with device.
But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same iommu domain.
And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to manager such domain with mempool.

All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember pt always works.
The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without performance impact.

For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up its mappings appropriately.
It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of alex
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> To: Zhou, Danny
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> 
> Shiva.
> The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't work
> as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will exists.
> 
> Danny.
> The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and umap
> operation for each e/ingress packet.
> The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to 3Gb
> with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference IFF the
> rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are used
> currently.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really depends on
> > how you use
> > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle boxes,
> > which adopts
> > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the entire
> > system including
> > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors and
> > assumed trustable, so
> > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > generally adopts a "open model"
> > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant applications
> > and VMs) which could
> > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK PMD
> > are not trustable
> > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of negative
> > performance impact.
> >
> > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or OS. And
> > if security is a major
> > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security. But I
> > do NOT think is comes with
> > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > measurement, but it probably true
> > for 100G NIC.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
> > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high
> > speed
> > > > nics.
> > > >
> > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> > > >> Hiremath
> > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> > > >> interface
> > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> > > >> iommu=pt
> > > >> > be set?
> > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > physical
> > > >> address
> > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-22  8:53           ` Liang, Cunming
@ 2014-10-22 15:21             ` Zhou, Danny
  2014-10-23  7:49               ` Alex Markuze
  2014-10-27 17:27               ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Zhou, Danny @ 2014-10-22 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Liang, Cunming, alex; +Cc: dev

Echo Cunming and we did not see obvious performance impact when iommu = pt is used despite of
igb_uio or VFIO is used.

Alex, 
The map and umap operation for each e/ingress packet is done by hw rather than sw, so
performance impact to DPDK should be minimum in my mind. If it actually impacst perf, say on 100G NIC,
I am sure it will be resolved in next generation Intel silicon. We will be performing some performance
tests with iommu = on to see any performance degradation. I cannot share the detailed performance
result here on the community, but I could tell if it really bring negative performance impact to DPDK.
Please stay tuned.

Alex, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liang, Cunming
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:53 PM
> To: alex; Zhou, Danny
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> 
> I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
> Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
> With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova.
> It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.
> 
> We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
> And each device can attach to one domain.
> It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.
> 
> Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling with device.
> But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
> So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same iommu domain.
> And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
> On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
> Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to manager such domain with mempool.
> 
> All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember pt always works.
> The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
> If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without performance impact.
> 
> For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up its mappings appropriately.
> It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of alex
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> > To: Zhou, Danny
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > Shiva.
> > The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't work
> > as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> > Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will exists.
> >
> > Danny.
> > The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and umap
> > operation for each e/ingress packet.
> > The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to 3Gb
> > with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference IFF the
> > rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are used
> > currently.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really depends on
> > > how you use
> > > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle boxes,
> > > which adopts
> > > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the entire
> > > system including
> > > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors and
> > > assumed trustable, so
> > > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > > generally adopts a "open model"
> > > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant applications
> > > and VMs) which could
> > > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK PMD
> > > are not trustable
> > > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of negative
> > > performance impact.
> > >
> > > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or OS. And
> > > if security is a major
> > > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security. But I
> > > do NOT think is comes with
> > > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > > measurement, but it probably true
> > > for 100G NIC.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
> > > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> > > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> > > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> > > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high
> > > speed
> > > > > nics.
> > > > >
> > > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> > > > >> Hiremath
> > > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> > > > >> interface
> > > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> > > > >> iommu=pt
> > > > >> > be set?
> > > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > > physical
> > > > >> address
> > > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> > > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-22 15:21             ` Zhou, Danny
@ 2014-10-23  7:49               ` Alex Markuze
  2014-10-27 17:27               ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alex Markuze @ 2014-10-23  7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zhou, Danny; +Cc: dev

Danny, you are correct in that DPDK shouldn't see any performance
degradation when IOMMU is present.
I was rather presenting an existing issue with kernel drivers
(bnx2x,ixgbe,mlx4, etc...) that create new RX/TX descriptors for each
packet and perform lots of map/unmap operations.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:

> Echo Cunming and we did not see obvious performance impact when iommu = pt
> is used despite of
> igb_uio or VFIO is used.
>
> Alex,
> The map and umap operation for each e/ingress packet is done by hw rather
> than sw, so
> performance impact to DPDK should be minimum in my mind. If it actually
> impacst perf, say on 100G NIC,
> I am sure it will be resolved in next generation Intel silicon. We will be
> performing some performance
> tests with iommu = on to see any performance degradation. I cannot share
> the detailed performance
> result here on the community, but I could tell if it really bring negative
> performance impact to DPDK.
> Please stay tuned.
>
> Alex,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liang, Cunming
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:53 PM
> > To: alex; Zhou, Danny
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
> > Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
> > With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova.
> > It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.
> >
> > We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
> > And each device can attach to one domain.
> > It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.
> >
> > Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling
> with device.
> > But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
> > So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same
> iommu domain.
> > And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
> > On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
> > Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to
> manager such domain with mempool.
> >
> > All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember
> pt always works.
> > The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
> > If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without
> performance impact.
> >
> > For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up
> its mappings appropriately.
> > It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of alex
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> > > To: Zhou, Danny
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > >
> > > Shiva.
> > > The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't
> work
> > > as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> > > Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will
> exists.
> > >
> > > Danny.
> > > The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and
> umap
> > > operation for each e/ingress packet.
> > > The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to
> 3Gb
> > > with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference
> IFF the
> > > rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are
> used
> > > currently.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really
> depends on
> > > > how you use
> > > > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle
> boxes,
> > > > which adopts
> > > > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the
> entire
> > > > system including
> > > > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors
> and
> > > > assumed trustable, so
> > > > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > > > generally adopts a "open model"
> > > > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant
> applications
> > > > and VMs) which could
> > > > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK
> PMD
> > > > are not trustable
> > > > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > > > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > > > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of
> negative
> > > > performance impact.
> > > >
> > > > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or
> OS. And
> > > > if security is a major
> > > > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security.
> But I
> > > > do NOT think is comes with
> > > > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > > > measurement, but it probably true
> > > > for 100G NIC.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> Hiremath
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be
> the
> > > > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows
> for
> > > > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted
> memory
> > > > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges.
> Unfortunately this
> > > > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for
> high
> > > > speed
> > > > > > nics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the
> hypervisor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <
> huawei.xie@intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of
> Shivapriya
> > > > > >> Hiremath
> > > > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA
> kernel
> > > > > >> interface
> > > > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require
> that
> > > > > >> iommu=pt
> > > > > >> > be set?
> > > > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > > > physical
> > > > > >> address
> > > > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the
> below link.
> > > > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-22 15:21             ` Zhou, Danny
  2014-10-23  7:49               ` Alex Markuze
@ 2014-10-27 17:27               ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  2014-10-27 17:32                 ` Zhou, Danny
  2014-10-30 23:22                 ` Zhou, Danny
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Shivapriya Hiremath @ 2014-10-27 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zhou, Danny; +Cc: dev

Hi Danny,

Your reply was very helpful in understanding the impact. Can you please
tell us if you saw any performance impact to DPDK when iommu=on ?

-Shivapriya

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:

> Echo Cunming and we did not see obvious performance impact when iommu = pt
> is used despite of
> igb_uio or VFIO is used.
>
> Alex,
> The map and umap operation for each e/ingress packet is done by hw rather
> than sw, so
> performance impact to DPDK should be minimum in my mind. If it actually
> impacst perf, say on 100G NIC,
> I am sure it will be resolved in next generation Intel silicon. We will be
> performing some performance
> tests with iommu = on to see any performance degradation. I cannot share
> the detailed performance
> result here on the community, but I could tell if it really bring negative
> performance impact to DPDK.
> Please stay tuned.
>
> Alex,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liang, Cunming
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:53 PM
> > To: alex; Zhou, Danny
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
> > Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
> > With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova.
> > It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.
> >
> > We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
> > And each device can attach to one domain.
> > It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.
> >
> > Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling
> with device.
> > But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
> > So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same
> iommu domain.
> > And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
> > On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
> > Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to
> manager such domain with mempool.
> >
> > All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember
> pt always works.
> > The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
> > If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without
> performance impact.
> >
> > For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up
> its mappings appropriately.
> > It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of alex
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> > > To: Zhou, Danny
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > >
> > > Shiva.
> > > The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't
> work
> > > as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> > > Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will
> exists.
> > >
> > > Danny.
> > > The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and
> umap
> > > operation for each e/ingress packet.
> > > The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to
> 3Gb
> > > with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference
> IFF the
> > > rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are
> used
> > > currently.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really
> depends on
> > > > how you use
> > > > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle
> boxes,
> > > > which adopts
> > > > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the
> entire
> > > > system including
> > > > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors
> and
> > > > assumed trustable, so
> > > > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > > > generally adopts a "open model"
> > > > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant
> applications
> > > > and VMs) which could
> > > > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK
> PMD
> > > > are not trustable
> > > > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > > > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > > > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of
> negative
> > > > performance impact.
> > > >
> > > > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or
> OS. And
> > > > if security is a major
> > > > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security.
> But I
> > > > do NOT think is comes with
> > > > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > > > measurement, but it probably true
> > > > for 100G NIC.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> Hiremath
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be
> the
> > > > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows
> for
> > > > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted
> memory
> > > > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges.
> Unfortunately this
> > > > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for
> high
> > > > speed
> > > > > > nics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the
> hypervisor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <
> huawei.xie@intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of
> Shivapriya
> > > > > >> Hiremath
> > > > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA
> kernel
> > > > > >> interface
> > > > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require
> that
> > > > > >> iommu=pt
> > > > > >> > be set?
> > > > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > > > physical
> > > > > >> address
> > > > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the
> below link.
> > > > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-27 17:27               ` Shivapriya Hiremath
@ 2014-10-27 17:32                 ` Zhou, Danny
  2014-10-30 23:22                 ` Zhou, Danny
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Zhou, Danny @ 2014-10-27 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shivapriya Hiremath; +Cc: dev

Shivapriya,

It is still ongoing as we need to run it on different Xeon server
platform like SandyBridge and IvyBridge, will post summary result
here once it is ready.

-Danny

From: Shivapriya Hiremath [mailto:shivpri.b@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:28 AM
To: Zhou, Danny
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?

Hi Danny,

Your reply was very helpful in understanding the impact. Can you please tell us if you saw any performance impact to DPDK when iommu=on ?

-Shivapriya

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com<mailto:danny.zhou@intel.com>> wrote:
Echo Cunming and we did not see obvious performance impact when iommu = pt is used despite of
igb_uio or VFIO is used.

Alex,
The map and umap operation for each e/ingress packet is done by hw rather than sw, so
performance impact to DPDK should be minimum in my mind. If it actually impacst perf, say on 100G NIC,
I am sure it will be resolved in next generation Intel silicon. We will be performing some performance
tests with iommu = on to see any performance degradation. I cannot share the detailed performance
result here on the community, but I could tell if it really bring negative performance impact to DPDK.
Please stay tuned.

Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liang, Cunming
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:53 PM
> To: alex; Zhou, Danny
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
>
> I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
> Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
> With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova.
> It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.
>
> We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
> And each device can attach to one domain.
> It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.
>
> Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling with device.
> But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
> So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same iommu domain.
> And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
> On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
> Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to manager such domain with mempool.
>
> All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember pt always works.
> The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
> If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without performance impact.
>
> For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up its mappings appropriately.
> It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of alex
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> > To: Zhou, Danny
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > Shiva.
> > The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't work
> > as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> > Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will exists.
> >
> > Danny.
> > The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and umap
> > operation for each e/ingress packet.
> > The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to 3Gb
> > with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference IFF the
> > rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are used
> > currently.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com<mailto:danny.zhou@intel.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really depends on
> > > how you use
> > > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle boxes,
> > > which adopts
> > > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the entire
> > > system including
> > > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors and
> > > assumed trustable, so
> > > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > > generally adopts a "open model"
> > > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant applications
> > > and VMs) which could
> > > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK PMD
> > > are not trustable
> > > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of negative
> > > performance impact.
> > >
> > > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or OS. And
> > > if security is a major
> > > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security. But I
> > > do NOT think is comes with
> > > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > > measurement, but it probably true
> > > for 100G NIC.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
> > > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io<mailto:alex@weka.io>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> > > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> > > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> > > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high
> > > speed
> > > > > nics.
> > > > >
> > > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com<mailto:huawei.xie@intel.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> > > > >> Hiremath
> > > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> > > > >> interface
> > > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> > > > >> iommu=pt
> > > > >> > be set?
> > > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > > physical
> > > > >> address
> > > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> > > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-27 17:27               ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  2014-10-27 17:32                 ` Zhou, Danny
@ 2014-10-30 23:22                 ` Zhou, Danny
  2014-10-31  0:05                   ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Zhou, Danny @ 2014-10-30 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Shivapriya Hiremath, Alex Markuze; +Cc: dev

Shivapriya, Alex

There is obvious performance (up to 40% perf. drop) impact to DPDK 64B small packet performance when “iommu = on” on Sandybridge, due to known issue on its IOTBL huge page support. If you config kernel parameter with “iommu = pt” on SandyBridge,  or upgrade your process to IvyBridge/Haswell, there is NO performance impact for 10G NIC.

-Danny

From: Shivapriya Hiremath [mailto:shivpri.b@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:28 AM
To: Zhou, Danny
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?

Hi Danny,

Your reply was very helpful in understanding the impact. Can you please tell us if you saw any performance impact to DPDK when iommu=on ? 

-Shivapriya


On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:
Echo Cunming and we did not see obvious performance impact when iommu = pt is used despite of
igb_uio or VFIO is used.

Alex,
The map and umap operation for each e/ingress packet is done by hw rather than sw, so
performance impact to DPDK should be minimum in my mind. If it actually impacst perf, say on 100G NIC,
I am sure it will be resolved in next generation Intel silicon. We will be performing some performance
tests with iommu = on to see any performance degradation. I cannot share the detailed performance
result here on the community, but I could tell if it really bring negative performance impact to DPDK.
Please stay tuned.

Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liang, Cunming
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:53 PM
> To: alex; Zhou, Danny
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
>
> I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
> Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
> With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova.
> It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.
>
> We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
> And each device can attach to one domain.
> It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.
>
> Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling with device.
> But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
> So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same iommu domain.
> And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
> On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
> Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to manager such domain with mempool.
>
> All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember pt always works.
> The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
> If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without performance impact.
>
> For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up its mappings appropriately.
> It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of alex
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> > To: Zhou, Danny
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > Shiva.
> > The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't work
> > as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> > Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will exists.
> >
> > Danny.
> > The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and umap
> > operation for each e/ingress packet.
> > The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to 3Gb
> > with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference IFF the
> > rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are used
> > currently.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really depends on
> > > how you use
> > > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle boxes,
> > > which adopts
> > > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the entire
> > > system including
> > > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors and
> > > assumed trustable, so
> > > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > > generally adopts a "open model"
> > > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant applications
> > > and VMs) which could
> > > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK PMD
> > > are not trustable
> > > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of negative
> > > performance impact.
> > >
> > > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or OS. And
> > > if security is a major
> > > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security. But I
> > > do NOT think is comes with
> > > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > > measurement, but it probably true
> > > for 100G NIC.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya Hiremath
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be the
> > > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows for
> > > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted memory
> > > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges. Unfortunately this
> > > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for high
> > > speed
> > > > > nics.
> > > > >
> > > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the hypervisor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> > > > >> Hiremath
> > > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA kernel
> > > > >> interface
> > > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require that
> > > > >> iommu=pt
> > > > >> > be set?
> > > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > > physical
> > > > >> address
> > > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the below link.
> > > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
  2014-10-30 23:22                 ` Zhou, Danny
@ 2014-10-31  0:05                   ` Shivapriya Hiremath
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Shivapriya Hiremath @ 2014-10-31  0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zhou, Danny; +Cc: dev

Thank you Danny. This is helpful info.

Regards,
Shivapriya Hiremath

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:

> Shivapriya, Alex
>
> There is obvious performance (up to 40% perf. drop) impact to DPDK 64B
> small packet performance when “iommu = on” on Sandybridge, due to known
> issue on its IOTBL huge page support. If you config kernel parameter with
> “iommu = pt” on SandyBridge,  or upgrade your process to IvyBridge/Haswell,
> there is NO performance impact for 10G NIC.
>
> -Danny
>
> From: Shivapriya Hiremath [mailto:shivpri.b@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:28 AM
> To: Zhou, Danny
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
>
> Hi Danny,
>
> Your reply was very helpful in understanding the impact. Can you please
> tell us if you saw any performance impact to DPDK when iommu=on ?
>
> -Shivapriya
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com> wrote:
> Echo Cunming and we did not see obvious performance impact when iommu = pt
> is used despite of
> igb_uio or VFIO is used.
>
> Alex,
> The map and umap operation for each e/ingress packet is done by hw rather
> than sw, so
> performance impact to DPDK should be minimum in my mind. If it actually
> impacst perf, say on 100G NIC,
> I am sure it will be resolved in next generation Intel silicon. We will be
> performing some performance
> tests with iommu = on to see any performance degradation. I cannot share
> the detailed performance
> result here on the community, but I could tell if it really bring negative
> performance impact to DPDK.
> Please stay tuned.
>
> Alex,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liang, Cunming
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:53 PM
> > To: alex; Zhou, Danny
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> >
> > I thinks it's a good point using dma_addr rather than phys_addr.
> > Without iommu, the value of them are the same.
> > With iommu, the dma_addr value equal to the iova.
> > It's not all for DPDK working with iommu but not pass through.
> >
> > We know each iova belongs to one iommu domain.
> > And each device can attach to one domain.
> > It means the iova will have coupling relationship with domain/device.
> >
> > Looking back to DPDK descriptor ring, it's all right, already coupling
> with device.
> > But if for mbuf mempool, in most cases, it's shared by multiple ports.
> > So if keeping the way, all those ports/device need to put into the same
> iommu domain.
> > And the mempool has attach to specific domain, but not just the device.
> > On this time, iommu domain no longer be transparent in DPDK.
> > Vfio provide the verbs to control domain, we still need library to
> manager such domain with mempool.
> >
> > All that overhead just make DPDK works with iommu in host, but remember
> pt always works.
> > The isolation of devices mainly for security concern.
> > If it's not necessary, pt definitely is a good choice without
> performance impact.
> >
> > For those self-implemented PMD using the DMA kernel interface to set up
> its mappings appropriately.
> > It don't require "iommu=pt". The default option "iommu=on" also works.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of alex
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:36 PM
> > > To: Zhou, Danny
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > >
> > > Shiva.
> > > The cost of disabling iommu=pt when intel_iommu=on is dire. DPDK won't
> work
> > > as the RX/TX descriptors will be useless.
> > > Any dam access by the device will be dropped as no dam-mapping will
> exists.
> > >
> > > Danny.
> > > The IOMMU hurts performance in kernel drivers which perform a map and
> umap
> > > operation for each e/ingress packet.
> > > The costs of unmapping when under strict protection limit a +10Gb to
> 3Gb
> > > with cpu maxed out at 100%. DPDK apps shouldn't feel any difference
> IFF the
> > > rx descriptors contain iova and not real physical addresses which are
> used
> > > currently.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Zhou, Danny <danny.zhou@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMHO, if memory protection with IOMMU is needed or not really
> depends on
> > > > how you use
> > > > and deploy your DPDK based applications. For Telco network middle
> boxes,
> > > > which adopts
> > > > a "close model" solution to achieve extremely high performance, the
> entire
> > > > system including
> > > > HW, software in kernel and userspace are controlled by Telco vendors
> and
> > > > assumed trustable, so
> > > > memory protection is not so important. While for Datacenters, which
> > > > generally adopts a "open model"
> > > > solution allows running user space applications(e.g. tenant
> applications
> > > > and VMs) which could
> > > > direct access NIC and DMA engine inside the NIC using modified DPDK
> PMD
> > > > are not trustable
> > > > as they can potentially DAM to/from arbitrary memory regions using
> > > > physical addresses, so IOMMU
> > > > is needed to provide strict memory protection, at the cost of
> negative
> > > > performance impact.
> > > >
> > > > So if you want to seek high performance, disable IOMMU in BIOS or
> OS. And
> > > > if security is a major
> > > > concern, tune it on and tradeoff between performance and security.
> But I
> > > > do NOT think is comes with
> > > > an extremely high performance costs according to our performance
> > > > measurement, but it probably true
> > > > for 100G NIC.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shivapriya
> Hiremath
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:54 AM
> > > > > To: Alex Markuze
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for all the replies.
> > > > > I am trying to understand the impact of this on DPDK. What will be
> the
> > > > > repercussions of disabling "iommu=pt" on the DPDK performance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DPDK uses a 1:1 mapping and doesn't support IOMMU.  IOMMU allows
> for
> > > > > > simpler VM physical address translation.
> > > > > > The second role of IOMMU is to allow protection from unwanted
> memory
> > > > > > access by an unsafe devise that has DMA privileges.
> Unfortunately this
> > > > > > protection comes with an extremely high performance costs for
> high
> > > > speed
> > > > > > nics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To your question iommu=pt disables IOMMU support for the
> hypervisor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Xie, Huawei <
> huawei.xie@intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of
> Shivapriya
> > > > > >> Hiremath
> > > > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59 PM
> > > > > >> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > My question is that if the Poll mode  driver used the DMA
> kernel
> > > > > >> interface
> > > > > >> > to set up its mappings appropriately, would it still require
> that
> > > > > >> iommu=pt
> > > > > >> > be set?
> > > > > >> > What is the purpose of setting iommu=pt ?
> > > > > >> PMD allocates memory though hugetlb file system, and fills the
> > > > physical
> > > > > >> address
> > > > > >> into the descriptor.
> > > > > >> pt is used to pass through iotlb translation. Refer to the
> below link.
> > > > > >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/02129.html
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-10-30 23:57 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-10-20 21:58 [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt? Shivapriya Hiremath
2014-10-20 22:39 ` Xie, Huawei
2014-10-21  7:32   ` Alex Markuze
2014-10-21 16:53     ` Shivapriya Hiremath
2014-10-21 19:10       ` Zhou, Danny
2014-10-22  7:35         ` alex
2014-10-22  8:53           ` Liang, Cunming
2014-10-22 15:21             ` Zhou, Danny
2014-10-23  7:49               ` Alex Markuze
2014-10-27 17:27               ` Shivapriya Hiremath
2014-10-27 17:32                 ` Zhou, Danny
2014-10-30 23:22                 ` Zhou, Danny
2014-10-31  0:05                   ` Shivapriya Hiremath

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git