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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes
 mwait/hlt
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        KarimAllah <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        christopher.s.hall@intel.com, hubert.chrzaniuk@intel.com,
        len.brown@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net
References: <1578448201-28218-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <20200108155040.GB2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <00d884a7-d463-74b4-82cf-9deb0aa70971@redhat.com>
 <CANRm+Cx0LMK1b2mJiU7edCDoRfPfGLzY1Zqr5paBEPcWFFALhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200113104314.GU2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ee2b6da2-be8c-2540-29e9-ffbb9fdfd3fc@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:52:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200113104314.GU2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 13/01/20 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So the very first thing we need to get sorted is that MPERF/TSC ratio
> thing. TurboStat does it, but has 'funny' hacks on like:
> 
>   b2b34dfe4d9a ("tools/power turbostat: KNL workaround for %Busy and Avg_MHz")
> 
> and I imagine that there's going to be more exceptions there. You're
> basically going to have to get both Intel and AMD to commit to this.
> 
> IFF we can get concensus on MPERF/TSC, then yes, that is a reasonable
> way to detect a VCPU being idle I suppose. I've added a bunch of people
> who seem to know about this.
> 
> Anyone, what will it take to get MPERF/TSC 'working' ?

Do we really need MPERF/TSC for this use case, or can we just track
APERF as well and do MPERF/APERF to compute the "non-idle" time?

Paolo