On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 13:06 -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This is a first proposal for using steal time information
> to influence the scheduler. There are a lot of optimizations
> and fine grained adjustments to be done, but it is working reasonably
> so far for me (mostly)
>
> With this patch (and some host pinnings to demonstrate the situation),
> two vcpus with very different steal time (Say 80 % vs 1 %) will not get
> an even distribution of processes. This is a situation that can naturally
> arise, specially in overcommited scenarios. Previosly, the guest scheduler
> would wrongly think that all cpus have the same ability to run processes,
> lowering the overall throughput.
>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
> kernel/sched.c | 4 ++++
> kernel/sched_fair.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index d747f94..beab72d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -302,6 +302,7 @@ 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 3b3e88d..c460f0d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -501,6 +501,8 @@ struct rq {
> struct sched_domain *sd;
>
> unsigned long cpu_power;
> + unsigned long real_ticks;
> + unsigned long total_ticks;
>
> unsigned char idle_at_tick;
> /* For active balancing */
> @@ -3533,10 +3535,12 @@ static int touch_steal_time(int is_idle)
> if (is_idle)
> return 0;
>
> + rq->total_ticks++;
> if (steal) {
> account_steal_time(steal);
> return 1;
> }
> + rq->real_ticks++;
> return 0;
> }
yuck!! is ticks really the best you can do?
I thought kvm had a ns resolution steal-time clock?
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index c62ebae..1364c28 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -2509,6 +2509,16 @@ static void update_cpu_power(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
> power >>= SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
> }
>
> + WARN_ON(cpu_rq(cpu)->real_ticks > cpu_rq(cpu)->total_ticks);
> +
> + if (cpu_rq(cpu)->total_ticks) {
> + power *= cpu_rq(cpu)->real_ticks;
> + power /= cpu_rq(cpu)->total_ticks;
> + }
> +
> + cpu_rq(cpu)->total_ticks = 0;
> + cpu_rq(cpu)->real_ticks = 0;
> +
> sdg->cpu_power_orig = power;
>
> if (sched_feat(ARCH_POWER))
I would really much rather see you change update_rq_clock_task() and
subtract your ns resolution steal time from our wall-time,
update_rq_clock_task() already updates the cpu_power relative to the
remaining time available.
--
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
