On 08/30/2010 09:06 AM, 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.
How is stolen time logically any different from a CPU running slowly due
to HT or power management? Is it worth trying to handle them in the
same way? (I'm mostly picking on the "_from_hypervisor" part, since
that seems over-specific.)
Why not have a get_unstolen_time() function which just returns
sched_clock() in the normal case, but can return less?
> 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;
> + }
Is that all? Does the scheduler use account_steal_time() to adjust its
scheduling decisions, or is it just something that gets shown to users?
I thought just the latter.
But if all you're doing is calling account_steal_time(), why bother with
all this get_steal_time_from_hypervisor() stuff? The
hypervisor-specific code can just call account_steal_time() directly.
> +
> /* Add user time to process. */
> p->utime = cputime_add(p->utime, cputime);
> p->utimescaled = cputime_add(p->utimescaled, cputime_scaled);
> @@ -3234,6 +3250,12 @@ void account_system_time(struct task_struct *p, int hardirq_offset,
> return;
> }
>
> + tmp = get_steal_time_from_hypervisor();
> + if (tmp) {
> + account_steal_time(tmp);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* Add system time to process. */
> p->stime = cputime_add(p->stime, cputime);
> p->stimescaled = cputime_add(p->stimescaled, cputime_scaled);
> @@ -3276,6 +3298,13 @@ void account_idle_time(cputime_t cputime)
> cputime64_t cputime64 = cputime_to_cputime64(cputime);
> struct rq *rq = this_rq();
>
> + /*
> + * if we're idle, we don't account it as steal time, since we did
> + * not want to run anyway. We do call the steal function, however, to
> + * give the guest the chance to flush its internal buffers
> + */
> + get_steal_time_from_hypervisor();
Eh? This doesn't make much sense. What side-effects is
get_steal_time_from_hypervisor() expected to have? If there's some
hypervisor-specific implementation detail, why not wrap that up in a
specific function rather than overloading this one?
J
--
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
