Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1587222

Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls

From Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls
Date 2017-02-24 02:20 +0100
Message-ID <tecIa-11o-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <t6tPQ-77C-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6PdE-4aP-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6QMp-5eA-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6Rp8-5PP-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <te5GF-4ww-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:35:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/02/2017 20:09, Radim Krcmar wrote:
> > One reason why we have a kernel/userspace split is to allow sharing of
> > CPU time.  Each application then its state that the kernel keeps track
> > of and saves/restores while time-multiplexing.
> > 
> > Our frequency scaling interface goes against the idea -- guest kernel
> > cannot schedule multiple userspaces on the same vCPU, because they could
> > conflict by overriding frequency.
> > 
> > i.e. our feature implies userspace tasks pinned to isolated vCPUs.

This is how cpufreq-userspace works:

2.2 Governor
------------

On all other cpufreq implementations, these boundaries still need to
be set. Then, a "governor" must be selected. Such a "governor" decides
what speed the processor shall run within the boundaries. One such
"governor" is the "userspace" governor. This one allows the user - or
a yet-to-implement userspace program - to decide what specific speed
the processor shall run at.

> That's bad.  This feature is broken by design unless it does proper
> save/restore across preemption.

Whats the current usecase, or forseeable future usecase, for save/restore
across preemption again? (which would validate the broken by design
claim).

> You don't need a hypercall.  Add a cpufreq driver in DPDK that doesn't
> use sysfs, and connect it to a daemon in the host through virtio-serial
> or vsock.
> 
> Paolo

Hypercalls overcome the problems mentioned in the first email
of the thread, i think you missed them:

"[patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls"

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2017-02-23 18:50 +0100
  Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> - 2017-02-24 02:20 +0100
    Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2017-02-24 10:20 +0100
      Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> - 2017-02-24 13:00 +0100
        Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2017-02-24 13:20 +0100
          Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> - 2017-02-24 14:10 +0100
            Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2017-02-24 16:40 +0100
              Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-02-24 18:10 +0100
              Re: [patch 0/3] KVM CPU frequency change hypercalls Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> - 2017-02-28 22:20 +0100

csiph-web