[PATCH v2] arm/arm64: KVM: Properly account for guest CPU time

Christian Borntraeger borntraeger at de.ibm.com
Mon Jun 1 00:47:46 PDT 2015

Am 28.05.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Christoffer Dall:
> Until now we have been calling kvm_guest_exit after re-enabling
> interrupts when we come back from the guest, but this has the
> unfortunate effect that CPU time accounting done in the context of timer
> interrupts occurring while the guest is running doesn't properly notice
> that the time since the last tick was spent in the guest.

Can you verify that a CPU bound guest has almost zero guest time?
Assuming that your answer is "yes" your patch make sense as host
timer interrupts should be the only reasons for guest exits then.

> Inspired by the comment in the x86 code, move the kvm_guest_exit() call
> below the local_irq_enable() call and change __kvm_guest_exit() to
> kvm_guest_exit(), because we are now calling this function with
> interrupts enabled.  We have to now explicitly disable preemption and
> not enable preemption before we've called kvm_guest_exit(), since
> otherwise we could be preempted and everything happening before we
> eventually get scheduled again would be accounted for as guest time.
> At the same time, move the trace_kvm_exit() call outside of the atomic
> section, since there is no reason for us to do that with interrupts
> disabled.
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
> ---
> This patch is based on kvm/queue, because it has the kvm_guest_enter/exit
> rework recently posted by Christian Borntraeger.  I hope I got the logic
> of this right, there were 2 slightly worrying facts about this:
> First, we now enable and disable and enable interrupts on each exit
> path, but I couldn't see any performance overhead on hackbench - yes the
> only benchmark we care about.

This should be somewhat similar to the situation before my patch.
There it was

1: "disable", "guest", "disable again and save", "restore to disable", "enable"
and now it is
2: "disable", "guest", "enable"
and with your patch it is
3: "disable", "guest", "enable", "disable, "enable"

I assume that 3 and 1 are similar in its costs, so this is probably ok.

> Second, looking at the ppc and mips code, they seem to also call
> kvm_guest_exit() before enabling interrupts, so I don't understand how
> guest CPU time accounting works on those architectures.

Not an expert here, but I assume mips has the same logic as arm so if your
patch is right for arm its probably also for mips.

powerpc looks similar to what s390 does (not using the tick, instead it uses
a hw-timer) so this should be fine.

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list