linux-kernel - Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 22:09:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        "boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernellwp@...il.com" <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        "joao.m.martins@...cle.com" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        "mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "ankur.a.arora@...cle.com" <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 07:27:35PM +0000, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 21:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:55:36PM +0000, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If the host is completely in no_full_hz mode and the pCPU is dedicated to a 
> > > > single vCPU/task (and the guest is 100% CPU bound and never exits), you would 
> > > > still be ticking in the host once every second for housekeeping, right? Would 
> > > > not updating the mwait-time once a second be enough here?
> > > 
> > > People are trying very hard to get rid of that remnant tick. Lets not
> > > add dependencies to it.
> > > 
> > > IMO this is a really stupid issue, 100% time is correct if the guest
> > > does idle in pinned vcpu mode.
> > 
> > One use case for proper accounting (obviously for a slightly relaxed definition 
> > or *proper*) is *external* monitoring of CPU utilization for scaling group
> > (i.e. more VMs will be launched when you reach a certain CPU utilization).
> > These external monitoring tools needs to account CPU utilization properly.
> 
> That's utter nonsense; what's the point of exposing mwait to guests if
> you're not doing vcpu pinning. For overloaded guests mwait makes no
> sense what so ever.

I think you misunderstood. The guests are pinned. What they can do today is
monitor the guests utilization time through mwait/vmexit. If that goes over
a certain threshold they can automatically launch more VMs to spread the
load.

With MWAIT in the guest this is gone...

Thanks,

	tglx