[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1561575336.25880.7.camel@amazon.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:55:36 +0000
From: "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@...zon.de>
To: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: "boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"joao.m.martins@...cle.com" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernellwp@...il.com" <kernellwp@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"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, 2019-06-26 at 20:41 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.
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?
>
> >
> > But perhaps there are other ways too to "snoop" if a guest is sitting on
> > an MWAIT?
>
> No idea.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Krausenstr. 38
10117 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Ralf Herbrich
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 149173 B
Sitz: Berlin
Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879
Powered by blists - more mailing lists