[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [REGRESSION] High, likely incorrect process cpu usage counters with kvm and 2.6.2[67]
    On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Avi Kivity <> wrote:
    > Running an idle Windows VM on Linux 2.6.26+ with kvm, one sees high values
    > for the kvm process in top (30%-70% cpu), where one would normally expect
    > 0%-1%. Surprisingly, the per-cpu system counters show almost 100% idle,
    > leading me to believe this is an accounting error and that the process does
    > not actually consume this much cpu.

    Busted process accounting - This looks the same as .
    Please verify. Peter's patch in latest git stops showing "incorrect
    looking" CPU usage but at least the process times are still wrong,
    In fact the CPU usage thing in -rc5 is likely also incorrect but I
    need to analyze that bit a little more.

    From Today's Git -


    12961 parag 20 0 83000 8908 6628 R 0 0.1 5124415h npviewer.bin

    > I bisected this to a scheduler change, namely
    > commit 3e51f33fcc7f55e6df25d15b55ed10c8b4da84cd
    > Author: Peter Zijlstra <>
    > Date: Sat May 3 18:29:28 2008 +0200
    > sched: add optional support for CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
    > this replaces the rq->clock stuff (and possibly cpu_clock()).
    > - architectures that have an 'imperfect' hardware clock can set
    > - the 'jiffie' window might be superfulous when we update tick_gtod
    > before the __update_sched_clock() call in sched_clock_tick()
    > - cpu_clock() might be implemented as:
    > sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id())
    > if the accuracy proves good enough - how far can TSC drift in a
    > single jiffie when considering the filtering and idle hooks?
    > [ various fixes and cleanups ]
    > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <>
    > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <>

    That patch sounds like it had open questions?
    Really giving this is a long standing bad regression, all the
    offending patches should be reverted in absence of a fix, no?


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-31 20:13    [W:0.050 / U:31.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site