Laurent Vivier wrote:> The aim of these two patches is to measure the CPU time used by a virtual > machine. All comments are welcome... I'm not sure it's the good way to do that. > > [PATCH 1/2] introduce a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store the time used by > the CPU to run virtual CPU. Modify /proc/stat to display this new field. > > [PATCH 2/2] modify account_system_time() to add cputime to cpustat->guest if we > are running a VCPU. We add this cputime to cpustat->user instead of > cpustat->system because this part of KVM code is in fact user code although it > is executed in the kernel. We duplicate VCPU time between guest and user to > allow an unmodified "top(1)" to display correct value. A modified "top(1)" is > able to display good cpu user time and cpu guest time by subtracting cpu guest > time from cpu user time. >[copying Ingo and Rusty] The patches look good. A couple of comments: - perhaps the new fields should be guarded by a #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR (selected by CONFIG_KVM)? that way the (minor) additional overhead is only incurred if it can possibly be used. I imagine that our canine cousin will want to use this as well. - I think that there is per-task accounting of user time and system time; that should be extended as well. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Avi Kivity wrote:> Laurent Vivier wrote: >> The aim of these two patches is to measure the CPU time used by a virtual >> machine. All comments are welcome... I'm not sure it's the good way to >> do that. >> >> [PATCH 1/2] introduce a new field, "guest", in cpustat to store the >> time used by >> the CPU to run virtual CPU. Modify /proc/stat to display this new field. >> >> [PATCH 2/2] modify account_system_time() to add cputime to >> cpustat->guest if we >> are running a VCPU. We add this cputime to cpustat->user instead of >> cpustat->system because this part of KVM code is in fact user code >> although it >> is executed in the kernel. We duplicate VCPU time between guest and >> user to >> allow an unmodified "top(1)" to display correct value. A modified >> "top(1)" is >> able to display good cpu user time and cpu guest time by subtracting >> cpu guest >> time from cpu user time. >> > > [copying Ingo and Rusty] > > The patches look good. A couple of comments: > > - perhaps the new fields should be guarded by a #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR > (selected by CONFIG_KVM)? that way the (minor) additional overhead is > only incurred if it can possibly be used. I imagine that our canine > cousin will want to use this as well.There is also a CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION and a CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING (from s390 and powerpc) Which one to use ? I'm wondering if we can have a more accurate accounting: - For the moment we add all system time since the previous entering to the VCPU to the guest time (and I guess there is some real system time in it ???) - Perhaps we can sum nanoseconds spent in the VCPU and add it to cpustat when these ns are greater than 1 ms ? (I'm trying to make something in this way)> - I think that there is per-task accounting of user time and system > time; that should be extended as well.it should be easy to do too... Laurent -- ------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net -------------- "Software is hard" - Donald Knuth -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20070813/70eee960/signature.pgp
Maybe Matching Threads
- [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
- [PATCH 0/4] Virtual Machine Time Accounting
- [PATCH 0/4] Virtual Machine Time Accounting
- [PATCH 3/4] modify account_system_time() to update guest time in cpustat and task_struct
- [PATCH 3/4] modify account_system_time() to update guest time in cpustat and task_struct