Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Date: Wed Jun 26 2019 - 14:31:40 EST
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:16:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:54:13AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:33:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > > After exposing mwait/monitor into kvm guest, the guest can make
> > > > physical cpu enter deeper cstate through mwait instruction, however,
> > > > the top command on host still observe 100% cpu utilization since qemu
> > > > process is running even though guest who has the power management
> > > > capability executes mwait. Actually we can observe the physical cpu
> > > > has already enter deeper cstate by powertop on host. Could we take
> > > > cstate into consideration when accounting cputime etc?
> > >
> > > If MWAIT can be used inside the guest then the host cannot distinguish
> > > between execution and stuck in mwait.
> > >
> > > It'd need to poll the power monitoring MSRs on every occasion where the
> > > accounting happens.
> > >
> > > This completely falls apart when you have zero exit guest. (think
> > > NOHZ_FULL). Then you'd have to bring the guest out with an IPI to access
> > > the per CPU MSRs.
> > >
> > > I assume a lot of people will be happy about all that :)
> > There were some ideas that Ankur (CC-ed) mentioned to me of using the perf
> > counters (in the host) to sample the guest and construct a better
> > accounting idea of what the guest does. That way the dashboard
> > from the host would not show 100% CPU utilization.
> But then you generate extra noise and vmexits on those cpus, just to get
> this accounting sorted, which sounds like a bad trade.
Considering that the CPUs aren't doing anything and if you do say the
IPIs "only" 100/second - that would be so small but give you a big benefit
in properly accounting the guests.
But perhaps there are other ways too to "snoop" if a guest is sitting on