On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 01:17:31PM +0900, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:31 PM Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 01:35:42PM +0900, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>> >When the host resumes from a suspend, the guest thinks any task
>> >that was running during the suspend ran for a long time, even though
>> >the effective run time was much shorter, which can end up having
>> >negative effects with scheduling. This can be particularly noticeable
>> >if the guest task was RT, as it can end up getting throttled for a
>> >long time.
>> >
>> >To mitigate this issue, we include the time that the host was
>> >suspended in steal time, which lets the guest subtract the duration from
>> >the tasks' runtime.
>> >
>> >Note that the case of a suspend happening during a VM migration
>> >might not be accounted.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >---
>> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>> > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> >index 4a68cb3eba78f8..728798decb6d12 100644
>> >--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> >+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> >@@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>> > u8 preempted;
>> > u64 msr_val;
>> > u64 last_steal;
>> >+ u64 last_suspend_ns;
>> > struct gfn_to_hva_cache cache;
>> > } st;
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> >index 70219e4069874a..104f3d318026fa 100644
>> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> >@@ -3654,7 +3654,7 @@ static void record_steal_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> > struct kvm_steal_time __user *st;
>> > struct kvm_memslots *slots;
>> > gpa_t gpa = vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_STEAL_VALID_BITS;
>> >- u64 steal;
>> >+ u64 steal, suspend_ns;
>> > u32 version;
>> >
>> > if (kvm_xen_msr_enabled(vcpu->kvm)) {
>> >@@ -3735,6 +3735,14 @@ static void record_steal_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> > steal += current->sched_info.run_delay -
>> > vcpu->arch.st.last_steal;
>> > vcpu->arch.st.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
>> >+ /*
>> >+ * Include the time that the host was suspended in steal time.
>> >+ * Note that the case of a suspend happening during a VM migration
>> >+ * might not be accounted.
>> >+ */
>> >+ suspend_ns = kvm_total_suspend_ns();
>> >+ steal += suspend_ns - vcpu->arch.st.last_suspend_ns;
>> >+ vcpu->arch.st.last_suspend_ns = suspend_ns;
>>
>> The document in patch 3 states:
>>
>> Time during which the vcpu is idle, will not be reported as steal time
>>
>> I'm wondering if all host suspend time should be reported as steal time,
>> or if the suspend time during a vCPU halt should be excluded.
>
>I think the statement about idle time not being reported as steal isn't
>completely accurate, so I'm not sure if it's worth the extra complexity.
>
>>
>> > unsafe_put_user(steal, &st->steal, out);
>> >
>> > version += 1;
>> >@@ -12280,6 +12288,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >
>> > vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities = kvm_get_arch_capabilities();
>> > vcpu->arch.msr_platform_info = MSR_PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULT;
>> >+ vcpu->arch.st.last_suspend_ns = kvm_total_suspend_ns();
>>
>> is this necessary? I doubt this because KVM doesn't capture
>> current->sched_info.run_delay here.
>
>Isn't run_delay being captured by the scheduler at all time?
I meant KVM doesn't do:
vcpu->arch.st.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
at vCPU creation time.
>
>We need to initialize last_suspend_ns otherwise the first call to
>record_steal_time() for a VCPU would report a wrong value if
>the VCPU is started after the host has already had a suspend.
But initializing last_suspend_ns here doesn't guarantee KVM won't report a
"wrong" value because a suspend can happen after vCPU creation and before
its first VM-enter.
