Re: [PATCH] kvm-vmx: add module parameter to avoid trapping HLT instructions (v2)

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 12/03/2010 03:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 05:23 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 12/02/2010 08:39 AM, lidong chen wrote:
>>> In certain use-cases, we want to allocate guests fixed time slices 
>>> where idle
>>> guest cycles leave the machine idling.
>>>
>>> i could not understand why need this? can you tell more detailedly?
>>
>> If you run 4 guests on a CPU, and they're all trying to consume 100% 
>> CPU, all things being equal, you'll get ~25% CPU for each guest.
>>
>> However, if one guest is idle, you'll get something like 1% 32% 33% 
>> 32%.  This characteristic is usually desirable because it increase 
>> aggregate throughput but in some circumstances, determinism is more 
>> desirable than aggregate throughput.
>>
>> This patch essentially makes guest execution non-work conserving by 
>> making it appear to the scheduler that each guest wants 100% CPU even 
>> though they may be idling.
>>
>> That means that regardless of what each guest is doing, if you have 
>> four guests on one CPU, each will get ~25% CPU[1].
>>
>
> What if one of the guest crashes qemu or invokes a powerdown?  
> Suddenly the others get 33% each (with 1% going to my secret round-up 
> account).  Doesn't seem like a reliable way to limit cpu.

A guest shutting down is a macro event.  Macro events are easy to track 
and are logged by even the most naive management tools.  Macro events 
affecting performance are a workable problem.  I agree, it would be 
ideal to make them not impact performance but perfection is the enemy of 
good.

The problem with the status quo is that there is no performance 
stability in a consolidation environment.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori