Re: [PATCHv3 08/32] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 03:19:47PM +0800, Dingji Li wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I hope it is appropriate to ask these questions here:
> 
> I'm wondering if there are any performance comparisons available between
> TDX guests and VMX guests. The #VE processing adds non-trivial overhead
> to various VM exits, but how does it affect the performance of
> real-world applications? Existing patches have listed alternative
> methods to avoid the #VE in the first place, but there are trade-offs
> (e.g., bloated code, reduced generality). Besides, how much does the
> time spent in the TDX module affect VM exits / applications? (I guess
> the TDX module has a low overhead when compared to the #VE processing,
> but there is no public data.) Maybe some performance data can help make
> better trade-offs?

This is basic enabling of TDX guest support. The goal is to make TDX guest
functional. Yes, #VE handling adds non-trivial overhead and we have plan
to migrate it: there are patches in the queue that help to avoid bulk of
#VE, like replacing #VE-based MMIO with direct hypercalls. TDX will still
have performance penalty over plain VMX no matter what, but we aim to
minimize it.

I don't have any performance numbers to share at the moment.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov