Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190507185647.GA29409@amt.cnet> <CANRm+Cx8zCDG6Oz1m9eukkmx_uVFYcQOdMwZrHwsQcbLm_kuPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D655C66D-8C52-4CE3-A00B-697735CFA51D@oracle.com> <1557748312.17635.17.camel@amazon.de>
In-Reply-To: <1557748312.17635.17.camel@amazon.de>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 09:45:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CwFyqCeHKOv-M134k4mvpjqnaO-pUO_p0W0QTPL36+ibA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: introduce configurable delay before entering idle
To:     "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@amazon.de>
Cc:     "mtosatti@redhat.com" <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "bsd@redhat.com" <bsd@redhat.com>,
        "aarcange@redhat.com" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "ankur.a.arora@oracle.com" <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 19:52, Raslan, KarimAllah <karahmed@amazon.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 07:31 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On May 13, 2019 5:20:37 AM EDT, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 02:57, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Certain workloads perform poorly on KVM compared to baremetal
> > > > due to baremetal's ability to perform mwait on NEED_RESCHED
> > > > bit of task flags (therefore skipping the IPI).
> > >
> > > KVM supports expose mwait to the guest, if it can solve this?
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is a bit of problem with that. The host will see 100% CPU utilization even if the guest is idle and taking long naps..
> >
> > Which depending on your dashboard can look like the machine is on fire.
>
> This can also be fixed. I have a patch that kind of expose proper information
> about the *real* utilization here if that would be help.

You can have a post.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li