From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39AE0611C1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:05:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F792ADA8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:05:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id BDD46AD9A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:05:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 84A0F45D25;
 Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:05:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:05:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
Message-ID: <190420382.634.1602569100580@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGxVzCCQusf3ZkfxV0=CGGoZRJhfwyhtB40zgyq6T+PSjXdRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201006115839.1026402-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <20201006115839.1026402-2-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <CAMGxVzCCQusf3ZkfxV0=CGGoZRJhfwyhtB40zgyq6T+PSjXdRQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.4-Rev10
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.070 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-common 1/1] ProcFSTools: add
 read_pressure
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:05:14 -0000

> I have notice that it's possible to get pressure info for each vm/ct
> through cgroups
> 
> /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/qemu.slice/<vmid>.scope/cpu.pressure
> /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/lxc/<vmid>/cpu.pressure
> 
> 
> Maybe it could be great to have some new rrd graphs for each vm/ct ?
> They are very useful counters to known a specific vm/ct is overloaded

I have no idea how reliable this is, because we do not use cgroups v2. But yes,
I think this would be useful.