[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D456FF9.2010309@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:04:41 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
CC: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aliguori@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting
On 01/28/2011 09:52 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This patch accounts steal time time in kernel/sched.
> I kept it from last proposal, because I still see advantages
> in it: Doing it here will give us easier access from scheduler
> variables such as the cpu rq. The next patch shows an example of
> usage for it.
>
> Since functions like account_idle_time() can be called from
> multiple places, not only account_process_tick(), steal time
> grabbing is repeated in each account function separatedely.
>
I accept that steal time is worthwhile, but do you have some way to
demonstrate that the implementation actually works and is beneficial?
Perhaps run two cpu-bound compute processes on one vcpu, overcommit that
vcpu, and see what happens to the processing rate with and without steal
time accounting. I'd expect a fairer response with steal time accounting.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists