Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration
From: Raslan, KarimAllah
Date: Wed Jun 26 2019 - 14:55:47 EST
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 20:41 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > 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:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> The host doesn't know what the guest CPUs are doing. And if you have a full
> zero exit setup and the guest is computing stuff or doing that network
> offloading thing then they will notice the 100/s vmexits and complain.
If the host is completely in no_full_hz mode and the pCPU is dedicated to aÂ
single vCPU/task (and the guest is 100% CPU bound and never exits), you wouldÂ
still be ticking in the host once every second for housekeeping, right? WouldÂ
not updating the mwait-time once a second be enough here?
> > But perhaps there are other ways too to "snoop" if a guest is sitting on
> > an MWAIT?
> No idea.
Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Ralf Herbrich
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 149173 B
Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879