On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 19.07.2010, at 10:19, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:57AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.07.2010, at 10:01, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:57:02AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19.07.2010, at 09:51, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 19.07.2010, at 09:33, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:02AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> That what I am warring about too. If we are adding device we have
> >>>>>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>>>> sure such device can actually exist on real hw too otherwise we may
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> problems later.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't understand why the constraints of real h/w have anything to
> >>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> with this. Can you explain?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Each time we do something not architectural it cause us troubles
> >>>>>>> later.
> >>>>>>> So constraints of real h/w is our constrains to.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also 1 second on 100M file does not look like huge gain to me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Every second counts. We're trying to get libguestfs boot times down
> >>>>>>>> from 8-12 seconds to 4-5 seconds. For many cases it's an interactive
> >>>>>>>> program.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what about making initrd smaller? I remember managing two
> >>>>>>> distribution in 64M flash in embedded project.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Having a huge initrd basically helps in reusing a lot of existing
> >>>>>> code. We do the same - in general the initrd is just a subset of the
> >>>>>> applications of the host OS. And if you start putting perl or the
> >>>>>> likes into it, it becomes big.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Why not provide small disk/cdrom with all those utilities installed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because - if the loading is done fast - this way everything's in RAM
> >>>> instantly. And you still have all devices available for use inside the
> >>>> system - that makes enumeration a lot easier. There are several reasons
> >>>> why and I don't think we should force different ways on people just
> >>>> because one component of our system is ineffective.
> >>>>
> >>> Loading huge initrd on real HW takes noticeably longer time that small
> >>> one, so I would say that it is your design that is to blame here, not
> >>> KVM.
> >>
> >> I disagree. Virtualization enables new use cases. The -initrd parameter is
> >> a very good example for that. It's something that you simply couldn't do
> >> on real hw.
> >>
> > How is it different from starting kernel/initrd from usb flash drive?
>
> The kernel and initrd are read directly from the host fs. It's more like a 9p
> grub boot.
>
There is no "host" on real HW :) But conceptually it's almost the same.
9p grub boot would be also nice. Hmm, I think PXE is closest to
-kernel/-initrd option on real HW.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess the best thing for now really is to try and see which code
> >>>>>> paths insb goes along. It should really be coalesced.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It is coalesced to a certain extent (reenter guest every 1024 bytes,
> >>>>> read from userspace page at a time). You need to continue injecting
> >>>>> interrupt into a guest during long string operation and checking
> >>>>> exception condition on a page boundaries.
> >>>>
> >>>> That still sounds slow. So yeah, adding DMA is probably the right way to
> >>>> go. But then again - if we model it after real hw it would be
> >>>> asynchronous, giving us an interrupt, causing even more headache. Ugh.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't we just ignore real hw constraints here and have it available in
> >>>> guest ram once one particular PIO is done? No bus master, no interrupts,
> >>>> but full speed and simplicity/atomicity which also helps migration.
> >>>>
> >>> We shouldn't add devices that work not like real HW to speed up some
> >>> pathological cases (and are slow on real HW too).
> >>
> >> Just because you don't use them doesn't mean they're pathological, really.
> >> We simply chose a bad interface for transferring reasonable big chunks of
> >> data and we need to fix that. If you want to look at it from a different
> >> perspective, it's a regression. Older qemu versions did map the kernel and
> >> initrd directly into guest ram, so now we're slower than back then.
> >>
> > I use them hundred time each day (at least -kernel part). If the
> > interface is slow for your use case I have no problem with introducing
> > new one, but the one that make sense in x86 architecture. I do not agree
> > this is regression BTW. You can't compare buggy way of doing things and
> > non-buggy way and say that bug fixing is a regression.
> >
> > What about adding new PCI card that holds kernel initrd in ROM bar?
>
> Yes and no. It sounds nice at first, but doesn't quite fit. There are two
> issues:
>
> 1) We need a new PCI ID
We have our range. We can allocate from there.
> 2) There can be a lot of initrd binaries with multiboot. We only have a
> limited amount of BARs
>
Is it supported now with fw_cfg interface? My main concern with this
approach is huge BAR size that may take a lot of space from PCI MMIO range
if guest OS decide to configure it.
--
Gleb.
