Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alter steal-time reporting in the guest

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 05:43:47PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/2/5 Michael Wolf <mjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > In the case of where you have a system that is running in a
> > capped or overcommitted environment the user may see steal time
> > being reported in accounting tools such as top or vmstat.  This can
> > cause confusion for the end user.
> 
> Sorry, I'm no expert in this area. But I don't really understand what
> is confusing for the end user here.

I suppose that what is wanted is to subtract stolen time due to 'known
reasons' from steal time reporting. 'Known reasons' being, for example,
hard caps. So a vcpu executing instructions with no halt, but limited to
80% of available bandwidth, would not have 20% of stolen time reported.

But yes, a description of the scenario that is being dealt with, with
details, is important.

> > To ease the confusion this patch set
> > adds the idea of consigned (expected steal) time.  The host will separate
> > the consigned time from the steal time.  Tthe steal time will only be altered
> > if hard limits (cfs bandwidth control) is used.  The period and the quota used
> > to separate the consigned time (expected steal) from the steal time are taken
> > from the cfs bandwidth control settings. Any other steal time accruing during
> > that period will show as the traditional steal time.
> 
> I'm also a bit confused here. steal time will then only account the
> cpu time lost due to quotas from cfs bandwidth control? Also what do
> you exactly mean by "expected steal time"? Is it steal time due to
> overcommitting minus scheduler quotas?
> 
> Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/