Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU/NEMU boot time with several x86 firmwares

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 06:47:54AM -0800, Maran Wilson wrote:
> On 12/6/2018 2:38 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:04:36AM -0800, Maran Wilson wrote:
> > > On 12/5/2018 5:20 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:44:33PM -0800, Maran Wilson wrote:
> > > > > On 12/3/2018 8:35 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM Rob Bradford <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Stefano, thanks for capturing all these numbers,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 15:27 +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > > > I continued to investigate the boot time, and as you suggested I
> > > > > > > > looked also at qemu-lite 2.11.2
> > > > > > > > (https://github.com/kata-containers/qemu) and NEMU "virt" 
> > > > > > > > machine. I
> > > > > > > > did the following tests using the Kata kernel configuration
> > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/kata-containers/packaging/blob/master/kernel/configs/x86_64_kata_kvm_4.14.x
> > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > To compare the results with qemu-lite direct kernel load, I 
> > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > another tracepoint:
> > > > > > > > - linux_start_kernel: first entry of the Linux kernel
> > > > > > > > (start_kernel())
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Great, do you have a set of patches available that all these trace
> > > > > > > points. It would be great for reproduction.
> > > > > > For sure! I'm attaching a set of patches for qboot, seabios, ovmf,
> > > > > > nemu/qemu/qemu-lite and linux 4.14 whit the tracepoints.
> > > > > > I'm also sharing a python script that I'm using with perf to extract
> > > > > > the numbers in this way:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > $ perf record -a -e kvm:kvm_entry -e kvm:kvm_pio -e
> > > > > > sched:sched_process_exec -o /tmp/qemu_perf.data &
> > > > > > $ # start qemu/nemu multiple times
> > > > > > $ killall perf
> > > > > > $ perf script -s qemu-perf-script.py -i /tmp/qemu_perf.data
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > As you can see, NEMU is faster to jump to the kernel
> > > > > > > > (linux_start_kernel) than qemu-lite when uses qboot or seabios 
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > virt support, but the time to the user space is strangely high, 
> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > the kernel configuration that I used is not the best one.
> > > > > > > > Do you suggest another kernel configuration?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This looks very bad. This isn't the kernel configuration we 
> > > > > > > normally
> > > > > > > test with in our automated test system but is definitely one we 
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > as part of our partnernship with the Kata team. It's a high 
> > > > > > > priority
> > > > > > > for me to try and investigate that. Have you saved the kernel 
> > > > > > > messages
> > > > > > > as they might be helpful?
> > > > > > Yes, I'm attaching the dmesg output with nemu and qemu.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Anyway, I obtained the best boot time with qemu-lite and direct
> > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > load (vmlinux ELF image). I think because the kernel was not
> > > > > > > > compressed. Indeed, looking to the others test, the kernel
> > > > > > > > decompression (bzImage) takes about 80 ms (linux_start_kernel -
> > > > > > > > linux_start_boot). (I'll investigate better)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yup being able to load an uncompressed kernel is one of the big
> > > > > > > advantages of qemu-lite. I wonder if we could bring that feature 
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > qemu itself to supplement the existing firmware based kernel 
> > > > > > > loading.
> > > > > > I think so, I'll try to understand if we can merge the qemu-lite
> > > > > > direct kernel loading in qemu.
> > > > > An attempt was made a long time ago to push the qemu-lite stuff (from 
> > > > > the
> > > > > Intel Clear Containers project) upstream. As I understand it, the main
> > > > > stumbling block that seemed to derail the effort was that it involved 
> > > > > adding
> > > > > Linux OS specific code to Qemu so that Qemu could do things like 
> > > > > create and
> > > > > populate the zero page that Linux expects when entering startup_64().
> > > > > 
> > > > > That ends up being a lot of very low-level, operating specific 
> > > > > knowledge
> > > > > about Linux that ends up getting baked into Qemu code. And 
> > > > > understandably, a
> > > > > number of folks saw problems with going down a path like that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since then, we have put together an alternative solution that would 
> > > > > allow
> > > > > Qemu to boot an uncompressed Linux binary via the x86/HVM direct boot 
> > > > > ABI
> > > > > (https://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/pvh.html). The solution 
> > > > > involves
> > > > > first making changes to both the ABI as well as Linux, and then 
> > > > > updating
> > > > > Qemu to take advantage of the updated ABI which is already supported 
> > > > > by both
> > > > > Linux and Free BSD for booting VMs. As such, Qemu can remain OS 
> > > > > agnostic,
> > > > > and just be programmed to the published ABI.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The canonical definition for the HVM direct boot ABI is in the Xen 
> > > > > tree and
> > > > > we needed to make some minor changes to the ABI definition to allow 
> > > > > KVM
> > > > > guests to also use the same structure and entry point. Those changes 
> > > > > were
> > > > > accepted to the Xen tree already:
> > > > > https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-04/msg00057.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > The corresponding Linux changes that would allow KVM guests to be 
> > > > > booted via
> > > > > this PVH entry point have already been posted and reviewed:
> > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/16/1002
> > > > > 
> > > > > The final part is the set of Qemu changes to take advantage of the 
> > > > > above and
> > > > > boot a KVM guest via an uncompressed kernel binary using the entry 
> > > > > point
> > > > > defined by the ABI. Liam Merwick will be posting some RFC patches 
> > > > > very soon
> > > > > to allow this.
> > > > Cool, thanks for doing this work!
> > > > 
> > > > How do the boot times compare to qemu-lite and Firecracker's
> > > > (https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker/) direct vmlinux ELF
> > > > boot?
> > > Boot times compare very favorably to qemu-lite, since the end result is
> > > basically doing a very similar thing. For now, we are going with a QEMU +
> > > qboot solution to introduce the PVH entry support in Qemu (meaning we will
> > > be posting Qemu and qboot patches and you will need both to boot an
> > > uncompressed kernel binary). As such we have numbers that Liam will 
> > > include
> > > in the cover letter showing significant boot time improvement over 
> > > existing
> > > QEMU + qboot approaches involving a compressed kernel binary. And as we 
> > > all
> > > know, the existing qboot approach already gets boot times down pretty low.
> > The first email in this thread contains benchmark results showing that
> > optimized SeaBIOS is comparable to qboot, so it does not offer anything
> > unique with respect to boot time.
> 
> To be fair, what I'm saying is that the qboot + PVH approach saves a
> significant percentage of boot time as compared to qboot only. So it does
> provide an important improvement over both existing qboot as well as
> optimized SeaBIOS from what I can tell. Please see:
> 
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-12/msg00957.html
> and
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-12/msg00953.html
> 
> > We're trying to focus on SeaBIOS because it's actively maintained and
> > already shipped by distros.  Relying on qboot will make it harder to get
> > PVH into the hands of users because distros have to package and ship
> > qboot first.  This might also require users to change their QEMU
> > command-line syntax to benefit from fast kernel booting.
> 
> But you do make a good point here about distribution and usability. Using
> qboot is just one way to take advantage of the PVH entry -- and the quickest
> way for us to get something usable out there for the community to look at
> and play with.
> 
> There are other ways to take advantage of the PVH entry for KVM guests, once
> the Linux changes are in place. So qboot is definitely not a hard
> requirement in the long run.

Great, good to hear!

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature