From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.221.50; helo=mail-wr1-f50.google.com; envelope-from=philmd@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wr1-f50.google.com (mail-wr1-f50.google.com [209.85.221.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B81512118D92A for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 02:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-f50.google.com with SMTP id j26-v6so20625649wre.1 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 02:34:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bvPpQ/fleid0tCk03h2GYMJ6ihdIVhRSrn3Wy2BxuM8=; b=J+wf6ikNRE85tOPqwSxzlRQbfBlwSkcvWvLsGfurNDRHGHSfh6pwU1WDR2fYG74lVY 5pd/00tXIHTAcB7st8xjL5wLU1S958Nb5gAJ1doL7xkAirW3o8824QFDcT3XFjX0iDCX HpsUrPMmjrHgsT4fvHn8/mMx97kJp9h27/7NGsskHv13vFzd10RYTbktkXJJRrtOpYW7 YsbjXCC/PWn7oBdyCNXFWwxNLy1OgcTouxSEHpgKn4AjnO8Tc1X9wElHHwacdlxKIrVz Um8j7GKGEOWieLZ9CBdz+FhmYXckWuXzij3fJx9SPXpFGCh8rpx80jLSg0hJ2t45onmZ 5rDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJE+puRbiBEaLb/Jy7hn+OUOXaz4r0tPk+7rzUEALJmzKQsSDRt p6mz6p31AC/hamB0dx1wtO7xvQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dtUoYFT4mvePTQc+4Cbv5nvGi+deY4HVX6nomAnJH3wnlUZpVU/Pbh67lG3r+/K2BVwKNYGg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a109:: with SMTP id o9-v6mr5114986wro.169.1542278089409; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 02:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.36] (2.red-83-59-163.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [83.59.163.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 125-v6sm20608940wmm.25.2018.11.15.02.34.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 02:34:48 -0800 (PST) To: A Z , edk2-devel@lists.01.org, QEMU Developers References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Message-ID: <975c044d-f44f-ca85-5ea8-28bce1cc6e40@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:34:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [OVMF+VIFO+QEMU] Large VM RAM allocation = Long Boot Times X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:34:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc'ing qemu-devel@ On 15/11/18 6:58, A Z wrote: > This is an issue that involves a combination of different software > packages, so my apologies in advance if this is the wrong list to post on. > > I'm experiencing terrible boot times when I assign a large amount of RAM to > a VM when used in combination with VIFO/PCI-passthrough. > > On a VM with a Nvidia GTX 970 + USB controller and 24GiB of RAM assigned, > the time to the TianoCore splash screen is ~5 minutes. It's then ~30 > seconds before Windows 10 begins to boot (spinning dots). During this time, > the QEMU CPU core threads are 100% busy. > > According to `perf`, the QMU CPU core threads are spending most of their > time waiting on a spinlock over kvm->mmu_lock that's created by > kvm_zap_gfn_range. > > I'm fairly certain that ~1 year ago (if not longer) the same configuration > didn't take this long to boot. > > Regards, > Adam