DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io>
To: "Zhou, Danny" <danny.zhou@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why do we need iommu=pt?
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:49:19 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKfHP0W=R1Y8Dw3xBmcki82_3eShC8D9DpvFBay+zTLr3cQKzg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DFDF335405C17848924A094BC35766CF0A97AF0A@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>

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.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-23  7:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-20 21:58 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 [this message]
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

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAKfHP0W=R1Y8Dw3xBmcki82_3eShC8D9DpvFBay+zTLr3cQKzg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=alex@weka.io \
    --cc=danny.zhou@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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