From: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
To: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
kvm-devel <kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH/RFC 3/4]Introduce "account modifiers" mechanism
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:55:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46C59AB1.6070505@qumranet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46C56774.2030009@bull.net>
Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>>> - remove PATCH 3, and add in task_struct a "ktime vtime" where we accumulate
>>> guest time (by calling something like guest_enter() and guest_exit() from the
>>> virtualization engine), and when in account_system_time() we have cputime >
>>> vtime we substrate vtime from cputime and add vtime to user time and guest time.
>>> But doing like this we freeze in kernel/sched.c the link between system time,
>>> user time and guest time (i.e. system time = system time - vtime, user time =
>>> user time + vtime and guest time = guest time + vtime).
>>>
>> Actually, I think we can set a per-cpu "in_guest" flag for the scheduler
>> code, which then knows to add the tick to the guest time. That seems
>> the simplest possible solution.
>>
>> lguest or kvm would set the flag before running the guest (which is done
>> with preempt disabled or using preemption hooks), and reset it
>> afterwards.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> It was my first attempt (except I didn't have a per-cpu flag, but a per-task
> flag), it's not visible but I love simplicity... ;-)
>
> A KVM VCPU is stopped by preemption, so when we enter in scheduler we have
> exited from VCPU and thus this flags is off (so we account 0 to the guest). What
> I did then is "set the flag on when we enter in the VCPU, and
> "account_system_time()" sets the flag off when it adds this timeslice to cpustat
> (and compute correctly guest, user, system time). But I didn't like this idea
> because all code executed after we entered in the VCPU is accounted to the guest
> until we have an account_system_time() and I suppose we can have real system
> time in this part. And I guess a VCPU can be less than 1 ms (unit of cputime) in
> a timeslice.
>
> So ? What's best ?
>
The normal user/system accounting has the same issue, no? Whereever we
happen to land (kernel or user) gets the whole tick.
So I think it is okay to have the same limitation for guest time.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-17 12:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <46C4719A.2060308@bull.net>
2007-08-16 15:57 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/4]Introduce a new field "guest" in cpustat Laurent Vivier
[not found] ` <46C4720F.7030304@bull.net>
2007-08-16 15:57 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/4]Introduce a new field "guest" in task_struct Laurent Vivier
[not found] ` <46C4725A.4070607@bull.net>
2007-08-16 15:58 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/4]Introduce "account modifiers" mechanism Laurent Vivier
2007-08-16 22:39 ` Rusty Russell
2007-08-17 7:35 ` Laurent Vivier
2007-08-17 8:30 ` Rusty Russell
2007-08-17 9:16 ` Laurent Vivier
2007-08-17 11:51 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/4, second shot]Introduce "account_guest_time" Laurent Vivier
2007-08-17 11:54 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/4, second shot]KVM uses "account_guest_time()" Laurent Vivier
2007-08-17 13:03 ` [kvm-devel] " Avi Kivity
2007-08-17 13:16 ` Laurent Vivier
2007-08-19 7:39 ` Avi Kivity
2007-08-17 12:59 ` [kvm-devel] [PATCH/RFC 3/4, second shot]Introduce "account_guest_time" Avi Kivity
2007-08-17 12:55 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2007-08-17 13:08 ` [kvm-devel] [PATCH/RFC 3/4]Introduce "account modifiers" mechanism Laurent Vivier
2007-08-17 13:32 ` Christian Borntraeger
2007-08-19 7:41 ` Avi Kivity
2007-08-17 14:12 ` Laurent Vivier
2007-08-19 7:38 ` Avi Kivity
2007-08-20 7:30 ` Laurent Vivier
2007-08-20 7:55 ` Avi Kivity
[not found] ` <46C472D2.7000702@bull.net>
2007-08-16 15:59 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/4]Modify KVM to use the "account modifiers" Laurent Vivier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46C59AB1.6070505@qumranet.com \
--to=avi@qumranet.com \
--cc=Laurent.Vivier@bull.net \
--cc=kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox