[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/kvm: Show guest system/user cputime in cpustat
On Thursday 11 March 2010 15:50:54 Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 09:46 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 March 2010 15:36:01 Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 03/11/2010 09:20 AM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> >>> Currently we can only get the cpu_stat of whole guest as one. This
> >>> patch enhanced cpu_stat with more detail, has guest_system and
> >>> guest_user cpu time statistics with a little overhead.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang<>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> This draft patch based on KVM upstream to show the idea. I would split
> >>> it into more kernel friendly version later.
> >>>
> >>> The overhead is, the cost of get_cpl() after each exit from guest.
> >>
> >> This can be very expensive in the nested virtualization case, so I
> >> wouldn't like this to be in normal paths. I think detailed profiling
> >> like that can be left to 'perf kvm', which only has overhead if enabled
> >> at runtime.
> >
> > Yes, that's my concern too(though nested vmcs/vmcb read already too
> > expensive, they should be optimized...).
> Any ideas on how to do that? Perhaps use paravirt_ops to covert the
> vmread into a memory read? We store the vmwrites in the vmcs anyway.

When Qing(CCed) was working on nested VMX in the past, he found PV
vmread/vmwrite indeed works well(it would write to the virtual vmcs so vmwrite
can also benefit). Though compared to old machine(one our internal patch shows
improve more than 5%), NHM get less benefit due to the reduced vmexit cost.

Yang, Sheng

> > The other concern is, perf alike mechanism would
> > bring a lot more overhead compared to this.
> Ordinarily users won't care if time is spent in guest kernel mode or
> guest user mode. They want to see which guest is imposing a load on a
> system. I consider a user profiling a guest from the host an advanced
> and rarer use case, so it's okay to require tools and additional
> overhead for this.
> >> For example you can put the code to note the cpl in a tracepoint which
> >> is enabled dynamically.
> >
> > Yanmin have already implement "perf kvm" to support this. We are just
> > arguing if a normal top-alike mechanism is necessary.
> >
> > I am also considering to make it a feature that can be disabled. But
> > seems it make things complicate and result in uncertain cpustat output.
> I'm not even sure that guest time was a good idea.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-11 10:19    [W:0.088 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site