Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753333Ab1BAP5M (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:57:12 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24751 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751297Ab1BAP5K (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:57:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting From: Glauber Costa To: Avi Kivity Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, Rik van Riel , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <4D456FF9.2010309@redhat.com> References: <1296244340-15173-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <1296244340-15173-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4D456FF9.2010309@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Red Hat Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 13:57:04 -0200 Message-ID: <1296575824.5081.17.camel@mothafucka.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1723 Lines: 39 On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/28/2011 09:52 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > > This patch accounts steal time time in kernel/sched. > > I kept it from last proposal, because I still see advantages > > in it: Doing it here will give us easier access from scheduler > > variables such as the cpu rq. The next patch shows an example of > > usage for it. > > > > Since functions like account_idle_time() can be called from > > multiple places, not only account_process_tick(), steal time > > grabbing is repeated in each account function separatedely. > > > > I accept that steal time is worthwhile, but do you have some way to > demonstrate that the implementation actually works and is beneficial? > > Perhaps run two cpu-bound compute processes on one vcpu, overcommit that > vcpu, and see what happens to the processing rate with and without steal > time accounting. I'd expect a fairer response with steal time accounting. Avi, There are two things here: One of them, which is solely the accounting of steal time, (patches 1 to 4) has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Its sole purpose is to provide the user with information about "why is my process slow if I am using 100 % of my cpu?") The last patch is the only one that actually tries to rebalance cpus according to steal time information. For that, I do have some experiments I did here to see if it is working, will try to provide more precise data in the next submission. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/