Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 07:27:35PM +0000, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 21:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:55:36PM +0000, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If the host is completely in no_full_hz mode and the pCPU is dedicated to a 
> > > > single vCPU/task (and the guest is 100% CPU bound and never exits), you would 
> > > > still be ticking in the host once every second for housekeeping, right? Would 
> > > > not updating the mwait-time once a second be enough here?
> > > 
> > > People are trying very hard to get rid of that remnant tick. Lets not
> > > add dependencies to it.
> > > 
> > > IMO this is a really stupid issue, 100% time is correct if the guest
> > > does idle in pinned vcpu mode.
> > 
> > One use case for proper accounting (obviously for a slightly relaxed definition 
> > or *proper*) is *external* monitoring of CPU utilization for scaling group
> > (i.e. more VMs will be launched when you reach a certain CPU utilization).
> > These external monitoring tools needs to account CPU utilization properly.
> 
> That's utter nonsense; what's the point of exposing mwait to guests if
> you're not doing vcpu pinning. For overloaded guests mwait makes no
> sense what so ever.

I think you misunderstood. The guests are pinned. What they can do today is
monitor the guests utilization time through mwait/vmexit. If that goes over
a certain threshold they can automatically launch more VMs to spread the
load.

With MWAIT in the guest this is gone...

Thanks,

	tglx