[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906262038040.32342@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:41:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KarimAllah <karahmed@...zon.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:16:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:54:13AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > There were some ideas that Ankur (CC-ed) mentioned to me of using the perf
> > > counters (in the host) to sample the guest and construct a better
> > > accounting idea of what the guest does. That way the dashboard
> > > from the host would not show 100% CPU utilization.
> >
> > But then you generate extra noise and vmexits on those cpus, just to get
> > this accounting sorted, which sounds like a bad trade.
>
> Considering that the CPUs aren't doing anything and if you do say the
> IPIs "only" 100/second - that would be so small but give you a big benefit
> in properly accounting the guests.
The host doesn't know what the guest CPUs are doing. And if you have a full
zero exit setup and the guest is computing stuff or doing that network
offloading thing then they will notice the 100/s vmexits and complain.
> But perhaps there are other ways too to "snoop" if a guest is sitting on
> an MWAIT?
No idea.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists