Re: [RFC 4/7] change kernel accounting to include steal time

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/25/2010 05:43 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
This patch proposes a common steal time implementation. When no
steal time is accounted, we just add a branch to the current
accounting code, that shouldn't add much overhead.

When we do want to register steal time, we proceed as following:
- if we would account user or system time in this tick, and there is
   out-of-cpu time registered, we skip it altogether, and account steal
   time only.
- if we would account user or system time in this tick, and we got the
   cpu for the whole slice, we proceed normaly.
- if we are idle in this tick, we flush out-of-cpu time to give it the
   chance to update whatever last-measure internal variable it may have.

This approach is simple, but proved to work well for my test scenarios.
in a UP guest on UP host, with a cpu-hog in both guest and host shows
~ 50 % steal time. steal time is also accounted proportionally, if
nice values are given to the host cpu-hog.

A cpu-hog in the host with no load in the guest, produces 0 % steal time,
with 100 % idle, as one would expect.

Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  include/linux/sched.h |    1 +
  kernel/sched.c        |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 0478888..e571ddd 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -312,6 +312,7 @@ long io_schedule_timeout(long timeout);
  extern void cpu_init (void);
  extern void trap_init(void);
  extern void update_process_times(int user);
+extern cputime_t (*hypervisor_steal_time)(void);
  extern void scheduler_tick(void);

  extern void sched_show_task(struct task_struct *p);
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index f52a880..9695c92 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3157,6 +3157,16 @@ unsigned long long thread_group_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *p)
  	return ns;
  }

+cputime_t (*hypervisor_steal_time)(void) = NULL;
+
+static inline cputime_t get_steal_time_from_hypervisor(void)
+{
+	if (!hypervisor_steal_time)
+		return 0;
+	return hypervisor_steal_time();
+}
+
+
  /*
   * Account user cpu time to a process.
   * @p: the process that the cpu time gets accounted to
@@ -3169,6 +3179,12 @@ void account_user_time(struct task_struct *p, cputime_t cputime,
  	struct cpu_usage_stat *cpustat =&kstat_this_cpu.cpustat;
  	cputime64_t tmp;

+	tmp = get_steal_time_from_hypervisor();
+	if (tmp) {
+		account_steal_time(tmp);
+		return;
+	}
+
  	/* Add user time to process. */
  	p->utime = cputime_add(p->utime, cputime);
  	p->utimescaled = cputime_add(p->utimescaled, cputime_scaled);

I see one problem here.

What if get_steal_time_from_hypervisor() returns a smaller
amount of time than "cputime"?

Would it be better to account tmp as stealtime, and the
difference (cputime - tmp) as user/sys/... time?

--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux