From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753622Ab0CKHpQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:45:16 -0500 Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:52175 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753320Ab0CKHpO (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:45:14 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,619,1262592000"; d="scan'208";a="779850012" From: Sheng Yang Organization: Intel Opensource Technology Center To: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm: Show guest system/user cputime in cpustat Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:46:43 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Zhang, Yanmin" References: <1268292022-31352-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <4B989D61.70906@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B989D61.70906@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003111546.44059.sheng@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 11 March 2010 15:36:01 Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/11/2010 09:20 AM, Sheng Yang wrote: > > Currently we can only get the cpu_stat of whole guest as one. This patch > > enhanced cpu_stat with more detail, has guest_system and guest_user cpu > > time statistics with a little overhead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang > > --- > > > > This draft patch based on KVM upstream to show the idea. I would split it > > into more kernel friendly version later. > > > > The overhead is, the cost of get_cpl() after each exit from guest. > > This can be very expensive in the nested virtualization case, so I > wouldn't like this to be in normal paths. I think detailed profiling > like that can be left to 'perf kvm', which only has overhead if enabled > at runtime. Yes, that's my concern too(though nested vmcs/vmcb read already too expensive, they should be optimized...). The other concern is, perf alike mechanism would bring a lot more overhead compared to this. > For example you can put the code to note the cpl in a tracepoint which > is enabled dynamically. Yanmin have already implement "perf kvm" to support this. We are just arguing if a normal top-alike mechanism is necessary. I am also considering to make it a feature that can be disabled. But seems it make things complicate and result in uncertain cpustat output. -- regards Yang, Sheng