[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190626192100.GP3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:21:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@...zon.de>
Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"joao.m.martins@...cle.com" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
"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, 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists