qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/5] cpu: Provide vcpu throttling interface


From: Jason J. Herne
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/5] cpu: Provide vcpu throttling interface
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:12:47 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0

On 07/23/2015 05:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:


On 16/07/2015 16:21, Jason J. Herne wrote:
1. Using atomic operations to manage throttle_percentage. I'm not sure
where atomics are applicable here. If this is still a concern hopefully
someone can explain.

I would use atomic_read/atomic_set in cpu_throttle_set,
cpu_throttle_stop, cpu_throttle_active, cpu_throttle_get_percentage.
In addition, the function naming seems to be a bit inconsistent: please
rename cpu_throttle_set to cpu_throttle_set_percentage.

Second, here:

+static void cpu_throttle_thread(void *opaque)
+{
+ double pct = (double)throttle_percentage/100;

Please use cpu_throttle_get_percentage(), and

+ double throttle_ratio = pct / (1 - pct);
+ long sleeptime_ms = (long)(throttle_ratio * CPU_THROTTLE_TIMESLICE);

... move these computations below the if.

I'm also not sure about throttle_ratio, why is it needed?  If pct >= 0.5 you
end up with throttle_ratio >= 1, i.e. no way for the CPU to do any work.  This
would definitely cause a problem with callbacks piling up.


Throttle ratio is relative to CPU_THROTTLE_TIMESLICE. Take a look at how
throttle_ratio is used in the calculation:

long sleeptime_ms = (long)(throttle_ratio * CPU_THROTTLE_TIMESLICE);

A value of 1 means we sleep the same amount of time that we execute.

+ if (!throttle_percentage) {
+ return;
+ }
+
+ qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
+ g_usleep(sleeptime_ms * 1000); /* Convert ms to us for usleep call */
+ qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
+}
+

2. Callback stacking. And it seems like we are convinced that it is not
a big issue. Anyone disagree?

I think it's not a big issue to have many timers, but it is a big issue to have 
many callbacks.  What I suggested is this:

     if (!atomic_xchg(&cpu->throttle_thread_scheduled, 1)) {
         async_run_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_throttle_thread, NULL);
     }

and in the callback:

     atomic_set(&cpu->throttle_thread_scheduled, 0);
     g_usleep(...);

Paolo



--
-- Jason J. Herne (address@hidden)




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]