Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM-GST: KVM Steal time accounting

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 02/02/2011 12:11 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 05:57 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:04 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >  On 01/28/2011 09:52 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> > >  This patch accounts steal time time in kernel/sched.
>> > >  I kept it from last proposal, because I still see advantages
>> > >  in it: Doing it here will give us easier access from scheduler
>> > >  variables such as the cpu rq. The next patch shows an example of
>> > >  usage for it.
>> > >
>> > >  Since functions like account_idle_time() can be called from
>> > >  multiple places, not only account_process_tick(), steal time
>> > >  grabbing is repeated in each account function separatedely.
>> > >
>> >
>> >  I accept that steal time is worthwhile, but do you have some way to
>> >  demonstrate that the implementation actually works and is beneficial?
>> >
>> >  Perhaps run two cpu-bound compute processes on one vcpu, 
>> overcommit that
>> >  vcpu, and see what happens to the processing rate with and without 
>> steal
>> >  time accounting.  I'd expect a fairer response with steal time 
>> accounting.
>>
>> Avi,
>>
>> There are two things here:
>> One of them, which is solely the accounting of steal time, (patches 1 to
>> 4) has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. Its sole purpose is
>> to provide the user with information about "why is my process slow if I
>> am using 100 % of my cpu?")
>
> Right.  Like irq and softirq time, we need to report this to the user, 
> as it's potentially much higher.

Of course, it's not enough to just account for this time, you also have 
to expose it somewhere, and update tools like top(1) to display it.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function