On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 07:19:41AM +0000, Wang, Huaqiang wrote:
Hi Martin, Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.-----Original Message----- From: Martin Kletzander [mailto:mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:27 PM To: Wang, Huaqiang <huaqiang.wang@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Feng, Shaohe <shaohe.feng@xxxxxxxxx>; Niu, Bing <bing.niu@xxxxxxxxx>; Ding, Jian-feng <jian-feng.ding@xxxxxxxxx>; Zang, Rui <rui.zang@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 00/10] x86 RDT Cache Monitoring Technology (CMT) On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:00:48PM +0800, Wang Huaqiang wrote: > >This is the V2 of RFC and the POC source code for introducing x86 RDT >CMT feature, thanks Martin Kletzander for his review and constructive >suggestion for V1. > >This series is trying to provide the similar functions of the perf >event based CMT, MBMT and MBML features in reporting cache occupancy, >total memory bandwidth utilization and local memory bandwidth >utilization information in livirt. Firstly we focus on cmt. > >x86 RDT Cache Monitoring Technology (CMT) provides a medthod to track >the cache occupancy information per CPU thread. We are leveraging the >implementation of kernel resctrl filesystem and create our patches on >top of that. > >Describing the functionality from a high level: > >1. Extend the output of 'domstats' and report CMT inforamtion. > >Comparing with perf event based CMT implementation in libvirt, this >series extends the output of command 'domstat' and reports cache >occupancy information like these: ><pre> >[root@dl-c200 libvirt]# virsh domstats vm3 --cpu-resource >Domain: 'vm3' > cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_2.value=4415488 > cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_2.vcpus=2 > cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_1.value=7839744 > cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_1.vcpus=1 > cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0,3.value=53796864 > cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0,3.vcpus=0,3 ></pre> >The vcpus have been arragned into three monitoring groups, these >three groups cover vcpu 1, vcpu 2 and vcpus 0,3 respectively. Take an >example, the 'cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0,3.value' reports the cache >occupancy information for vcpu 0 and vcpu 3, the 'cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0,3.vcpus' >represents the vcpu group information. > >To address Martin's suggestion "beware as 1-4 is something else than >1,4 so you need to differentiate that.", the content of 'vcpus' >(cpu.cacheoccupancy.<groupname>.vcpus=xxx) has been specially >processed, if vcpus is a continous range, e.g. 0-2, then the output >of cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0-2.vcpus will be like >'cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0-2.vcpus=0,1,2' >instead of >'cpu.cacheoccupancy.vcpus_0-2.vcpus=0-2'. >Please note that 'vcpus_0-2' is a name of this monitoring group, >could be specified any other word from the XML configuration file or >lively changed with the command introduced in following part. > One small nit according to the naming (but it shouldn't block any reviewers from reviewing, just keep this in mind for next version for example) is that this is still inconsistent.OK. I'll try to use words such as 'cache', 'cpu resource' and avoid using 'RDT', 'CMT'.
Oh, you misunderstood, I meant the naming in the domstats output =)
The way domstats are structured when there is something like anarray could shed some light into this. What you suggested is really kind of hard to parse (although looks better). What would you say to something like this: cpu.cacheoccupancy.count = 3 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.value=4415488 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.vcpus=2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.name=vcpus_2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.value=7839744 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.vcpus=1 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.name=vcpus_1 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.value=53796864 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.vcpus=0,3 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.name=0,3Your arrangement looks more reasonable, thanks for your advice. However, as I mentioned in another email that I sent to libvirt-list hours ago, the kernel resctrl interface provides cache occupancy information for each cache block for every resource group. Maybe we need to expose the cache occupancy for each cache block. If you agree, we need to refine the 'domstats' output message, how about this: cpu.cacheoccupancy.count=3 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.name=vcpus_2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.vcpus=2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.block.count=2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.block.0.bytes=5488 cpu.cacheoccupancy.0.block.1. bytes =4410000 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.name=vcpus_1 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.vcpus=1 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.block.count=2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.block.0. bytes =7839744 cpu.cacheoccupancy.1.block.0. bytes =0 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.name=0,3 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.vcpus=0,3 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.block.count=2 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.block.0. bytes=53796864 cpu.cacheoccupancy.2.block.1. bytes=0
What do you mean by cache block? Is that (cache_size / granularity)? In that case it looks fine, I guess (without putting too much thought into it). Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
