lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:16:08 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:54:13AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:33:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > After exposing mwait/monitor into kvm guest, the guest can make
> > > physical cpu enter deeper cstate through mwait instruction, however,
> > > the top command on host still observe 100% cpu utilization since qemu
> > > process is running even though guest who has the power management
> > > capability executes mwait. Actually we can observe the physical cpu
> > > has already enter deeper cstate by powertop on host. Could we take
> > > cstate into consideration when accounting cputime etc?
> > 
> > If MWAIT can be used inside the guest then the host cannot distinguish
> > between execution and stuck in mwait.
> > 
> > It'd need to poll the power monitoring MSRs on every occasion where the
> > accounting happens.
> > 
> > This completely falls apart when you have zero exit guest. (think
> > NOHZ_FULL). Then you'd have to bring the guest out with an IPI to access
> > the per CPU MSRs.
> > 
> > I assume a lot of people will be happy about all that :)
> 
> 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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists