[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5310a7a1-3c3b-7b19-4f2d-6f7919c7b560@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:18:59 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls
On 24/02/2017 00:19, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> i.e. our feature implies userspace tasks pinned to isolated vCPUs.
> This is how cpufreq-userspace works:
>
> 2.2 Governor
> ------------
>
> On all other cpufreq implementations, these boundaries still need to
> be set. Then, a "governor" must be selected. Such a "governor" decides
> what speed the processor shall run within the boundaries. One such
> "governor" is the "userspace" governor. This one allows the user - or
> a yet-to-implement userspace program - to decide what specific speed
> the processor shall run at.
The userspace program sets a policy for the whole system.
>> That's bad. This feature is broken by design unless it does proper
>> save/restore across preemption.
>
> Whats the current usecase, or forseeable future usecase, for save/restore
> across preemption again? (which would validate the broken by design
> claim).
Stop a guest that is using cpufreq, start a guest that is not using it.
The second guest's performance now depends on the state that the first
guest left in cpufreq.
I think this is abusing the userspace governor. Unfortunately cpufreq
governors cannot be stacked.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists