Message-ID: <4D492DBA.9050603@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:11:06 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
CC: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting
References: <1296244340-15173-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>	 <1296244340-15173-4-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>	 <4D456FF9.2010309@redhat.com> <1296575824.5081.17.camel@mothafucka.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1296575824.5081.17.camel@mothafucka.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2028
Lines: 48

On 02/01/2011 05:57 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 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?")

Right.  Like irq and softirq time, we need to report this to the user, 
as it's potentially much higher.

> 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.
>

Thanks.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/