lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/7] taskstats: Add per task steal time accounting
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:08:44 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 18:59 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > Steal time per task is at least good for performance problem analysis.
> > Sometimes knowing what is not the cause of a performance problem can help you
> > tremendously. If a task is slow and has no steal time, well then the hypervisor
> > is likely not the culprit. On the other hand if you do see lots of steal time
> > for a task while the rest of the system doesn't cause any steal time can tell
> > you something as well. That task might hit a specific function which causes
> > hypervisor overhead. The usefulness depends on the situation, it is another
> > data point which may or may not help you.
>
> If performance analysis is the only reason, why not add a tracepoint on
> vcpu enter that reports the duration the vcpu was out for and use perf
> to gather said data? It can tell you what process was running and what
> instruction it was at when the vcpu went away.
>
> No need to add 40 bytes per task for that.

Which vcpu enter? We usually have z/VM as our hypervisor and want to be able
to do performance analysis with the data we gather inside the guest. There
is no vcpu enter we could put a tracepoint on. We would have to put tracepoints
on every possible interaction point with z/VM to get this data. To me it seems
a lot simpler to add the per-task steal time.

And if it is really the additional 40 bytes on x86 that bother you so much,
we could put them behind #ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING. There already
is one in the task_struct for prev_utime and prev_stime.

--
blue skies,
Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-16 09:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans