[Qemu-devel] Re: using mmap?

[Anthony Liguori]

Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I'm also doubtful how much benefit it gave in practice. I'm sure it would
> > be good for synthetic CPU benchmarks. However using mmap significantly
> > increases the overhead of context switches/tlb misses.
> >
> > To get good overall performance I suspect you're going to need closer
> > cooperation with the kernel than mmap gives you. If you really want to make
> > cross-emulation go fast I suggest working with the xen and/or kvm people to
> > integrate qemu dynamic translation into those products. In theory I'd guess
> > you should be able to plug it in as an alternative to the HVM code. I've no
> > idea how close that is to being practical.
>
> http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/HVM/V2E
>
> The v2e stuff allows execution state to be extracted from the real CPU, 
> plugged into QEmu for a bit for emulation, then transferred back to the real 
> CPU again.  This is initially to be used for supporting Big Real Mode 
> emulation on HVM platforms.  Later on it's planned to be used to accelerate 
> IO emulation further.
>
> Eventually this may provide a means to use QEmu's translator to execute kernel 
> code whilst running user mode code under Xen.  It may be that this isn't as 
> fast as other approaches, but it'd be a useful feature for Xen to have IMO.

I'd absolute like to get there.  The current Xen HVM code is a bit of a 
mess at the moment.  There are far too many assumptions about having 
VT/SVM hardware present.  However, I'd really like to get to a point 
where Xen could run unmodified guests on non VT/SVM hardware using qemu 
with user virtualization.

KVM is having similar trouble ATM with big real mode.  It would be very 
nice to also add a V2E like interface to KVM.

I'd also like to see the translator even used for paravirtual guests. 
This way we could still have a proper boot loader run without having to 
deal with paravirtualizing it.  It would be nice to use emulation to 
avoid paravirtualizing the non-performance critical bits.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> > > Wouldn't this be a *significant*
> > > performance enhancement for this setup which I'm sure is a common one?
> > > Maybe this can be implemented for regular processes on the guest and
> > > only use the softmmu for the kernel?  Would someone point me in the
> > > right direction for technical information?  I have had to switch to
> > > vmware free player until Qemu+KQEMU reaches a point of similar
> > > performance, but I would really rather see Qemu advance further.
> > If you're using an accelerator (eg. kqemu or kvm) this is all irelevant as
> > most code isn't run by qemu, it's virtualized by the accelerator. qemu just
> > does the IO emulation.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qemu-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel