Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753308Ab2H1QBX (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:01:23 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:60390 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753190Ab2H1QBV (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:01:21 -0400 From: Anthony Liguori To: Avi Kivity , mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, glommer@parallels.com, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add guest cpu_entitlement reporting In-Reply-To: <503BEC0D.9090409@redhat.com> References: <20120823231346.11681.1502.stgit@lambeau> <503BC298.3080306@redhat.com> <1346098984.8623.23.camel@lambeau> <503BD920.20603@redhat.com> <1346102820.8623.32.camel@lambeau> <503BEC0D.9090409@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+93~ged93d79 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:01:16 -0500 Message-ID: <87ipc3uhtf.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3406 Lines: 85 Avi Kivity writes: > On 08/27/2012 02:27 PM, Michael Wolf wrote: >> On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 13:31 -0700, Avi Kivity wrote: >> > On 08/27/2012 01:23 PM, Michael Wolf wrote: >> > > > >> > > > How would a guest know what its entitlement is? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Currently the Admin/management tool setting up the guests will put it on >> > > the qemu commandline. From this it is passed via an ioctl to the host. >> > > The guest will get the value from the host via a hypercall. >> > > >> > > In the future the host could try and do some of it automatically in some >> > > cases. >> > >> > Seems to me it's a meaningless value for the guest. Suppose it is >> > migrated to a host that is more powerful, and as a result its relative >> > entitlement is reduced. The value needs to be adjusted. >> >> This is why I chose to manage the value from the sysctl interface rather >> than just have it stored as a value in /proc. Whatever tool was used to >> migrate the vm could hopefully adjust the sysctl value on the guest. > > We usually try to avoid this type of coupling. What if the guest is > rebooting while this is happening? What if it's not running Linux at > all? The guest shouldn't need to know it's entitlement. Or at least, it's up to a management tool to report that in a way that's meaningful for the guest. For instance, with a hosting provider, you may have 3 service levels (small, medium, large). How you present whether the guest is small, medium, or large to the guest is up to the hosting provider. > >> > >> > This is best taken care of from the host side. >> >> Not sure what you are getting at here. If you are running in a cloud >> environment, you purchase a VM with the understanding that you are >> getting certain resources. As this type of user I don't believe you >> have any access to the host to see this type of information. So the >> user still wouldnt have a way to confirm that they are receiving what >> they should be in the way of processor resources. >> >> Would you please elaborate a little more on this? > > I meant not reporting this time as steal time. But that cripples steal > time reporting. > > Looks like for each quanta we need to report how much real time has > passed, how much the guest was actually using, and how much the guest > was not using due to overcommit (with the reminder being unallocated > time). The guest could then present it any way it wanted to. What I had previously suggested what splitting entitlement loss out of steal time and reporting it as a separate metric (but not reporting a fixed notion of entitlement). You're missing the entitlement loss bit above. But you need to call out entitlement loss in order to report idle time correctly. I think changing steal time (as this patch does) is wrong. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- > I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this > signature is too narrow to contain. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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/