From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, gleb@redhat.com,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, glommer@parallels.com,
mingo@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alter steal-time reporting in the guest
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:34:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hzaVXZDLfR6YRRrPXRJ9_Xijg4g2ZMcNar5132XUP6EQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1362514928.6267.16.camel@lambeau>
2013/3/5 Michael Wolf <mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> Sorry for the delay in the response. I did not see the email
> right away.
>
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 22:11 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 05:43:47PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> > 2013/2/5 Michael Wolf <mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
>> > > In the case of where you have a system that is running in a
>> > > capped or overcommitted environment the user may see steal time
>> > > being reported in accounting tools such as top or vmstat. This can
>> > > cause confusion for the end user.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I'm no expert in this area. But I don't really understand what
>> > is confusing for the end user here.
>>
>> I suppose that what is wanted is to subtract stolen time due to 'known
>> reasons' from steal time reporting. 'Known reasons' being, for example,
>> hard caps. So a vcpu executing instructions with no halt, but limited to
>> 80% of available bandwidth, would not have 20% of stolen time reported.
>
> Yes exactly and the end user many times did not set up the guest and is
> not aware of the capping. The end user is only aware of the performance
> level that they were told they would get with the guest.
>
>>
>> But yes, a description of the scenario that is being dealt with, with
>> details, is important.
>
> I will add more detail to the description next time I submit the
> patches. How about something like,"In a cloud environment the user of a
> kvm guest is not aware of the underlying hardware or how many other
> guests are running on it. The end user is only aware of a level of
> performance that they should see." or does that just muddy the picture
> more??
That alone is probably not enough. But yeah, make sure you clearly
state the difference between expected (caps, sched bandwidth...) and
unexpected (overcommitting, competing load...) stolen time. Then add a
practical example as you made above that explains why it matters to
make that distinction and why you want to report it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-06 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-05 21:49 [PATCH 0/4] Alter steal-time reporting in the guest Michael Wolf
2013-02-05 21:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] Alter the amount of steal time reported by " Michael Wolf
2013-02-05 21:49 ` [PATCH 2/4] Expand the steal time msr to also contain the consigned time Michael Wolf
2013-02-06 21:14 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 14:25 ` Michael Wolf
2013-02-05 21:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] Add the code to send the consigned time from the host to the guest Michael Wolf
2013-02-06 21:18 ` Rik van Riel
2013-02-07 14:26 ` Michael Wolf
2013-02-05 21:49 ` [PATCH 4/4] Add a timer to allow the separation of consigned from steal time Michael Wolf
2013-02-06 14:36 ` Glauber Costa
2013-02-06 18:07 ` Michael Wolf
2013-02-07 8:46 ` Glauber Costa
2013-02-07 14:27 ` Michael Wolf
2013-02-18 23:57 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-05 20:17 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-06 1:35 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-02-18 16:43 ` [PATCH 0/4] Alter steal-time reporting in the guest Frederic Weisbecker
2013-02-19 1:11 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-05 20:22 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-06 1:41 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-06 8:13 ` Glauber Costa
2013-03-06 16:29 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-07 0:52 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-07 3:11 ` Paul Mackerras
2013-03-07 20:23 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-06 16:27 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-07 2:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-07 21:09 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-07 21:15 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-07 21:25 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-07 22:34 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-08 1:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-08 2:21 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-03-06 13:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2013-03-06 16:23 ` Michael Wolf
2013-03-06 13:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFTL4hzaVXZDLfR6YRRrPXRJ9_Xijg4g2ZMcNar5132XUP6EQw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).