From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 BAEAC611DB for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:33:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AC3DCB229 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:33:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lj1-x242.google.com (mail-lj1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::242]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8C82AB215 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-x242.google.com with SMTP id a5so19153695ljj.11 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:33:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=odiso-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/NjeeVeaEF0dWZhVewWMCrIwQtL7Fffb8DW9L27Im+8=; b=sGCDdi8yCzVh5rSG5u4cbmHYtCRhLqtvD+AXWgT74isWCxXafySOJ4IvHiXZ3ZX7La qUPHUm2D5XwgnXupwbW+A006AhD/eRwsSRDQlNTTKzF6+I8CgWvOhJ2tQD1PY+kvO5aJ cp8zQU/wyz6RI//XiHsDj/bNYAAwwS5c37ayQQ8+lmi1WZej5flMgo8E7SQa/Ys5Cl+n +jAhc4ohZqB9p4FAAKtdTR1NI14VZywEV3/JPaykSUmswksJ7R7t3QHmiDOV4no/4Dq9 +Q92UV2GwPVpD31Jevq1WE30WyMkMkMSi0fIe7vCPiUppm8h6GCXbSm41ZCAJzyIjQPV C0jw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/NjeeVeaEF0dWZhVewWMCrIwQtL7Fffb8DW9L27Im+8=; b=pdAd0f9C1HTvHPvXYMiR3VEMLnW2gka4ItP+KU+FSsoxQM4XJmOH49zIPNnpAmZPt/ ygEfNfHEoq3CwbXV9nvGzoQ7QKIQcPe3pmrmPjF+ASLmp6cUkHqnO2jsVrkVfpTuI8sv qXS0Ikbtp1g7IoEq0bJGwDyPnQc5BtFwtYM9q9nTJZB+R4+ARNTF6BAdiKFSF62uiusk csn0P5x+wYHvxRf1W+A8MlNKEEt+XdwEw5PhYkc/DCvHZk4iJTjDVf2lNJeqUTf9XUux eJRIvbGydk5qcvzkUjkRlbeZUbioUrVU0VvSnFQl39mNDWrQBqXo1hjy8wqGUJZ7uyMp wfsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312ZyHFsG33X2nmapZnWfuNstTvrVFcJVATBgDNOREoW5BvP2W9 OSP8m86D6QVD0tiG9UnUEA4/Rt8TW/tEDUapHaOQiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwqPvOV5fW4DFw+IAMXYFNzIrdG5+f2nY8rnqBl7I5PdmLxNM+VtG4ANU+V52fhbMPH/Wdjk+Fa8dLHdTCNJU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b610:: with SMTP id r16mr2666352ljn.145.1602570781940; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 23:33:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201006115839.1026402-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20201006115839.1026402-2-aderumier@odiso.com> <190420382.634.1602569100580@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <190420382.634.1602569100580@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Alexandre Derumier Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:32:50 +0200 Message-ID: To: Dietmar Maurer Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemu.sl] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:33:09 -0000 >>I have no idea how reliable this is, because we do not use cgroups v2. But yes, >>I think this would be useful. I have tested it on a host with a lot of small vms. (something like 400vms on a 48cores), with this number of vms, they was a lot of context switches, and vms was laggy. cpu usage was ok (maybe 40%), loadaverage was around 40, but pressure was around 20%. (so it seem more precise than loadaverage) global /proc/pressure/cpu was almost the sum of cgroups of /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/qemu.slice/.scope/cpu.pressure so,it seem reliable. (I don't have lxc container in production, but I think it should be the same) So, yes, I think we could add them to rrd for both host/vms. BTW, I'm currently playing with reading the rrd files, and I have notice than lower precision is 1minute. as pvestatd send values around each 10s, is this 1minute precision an average of 6x10s values send by pvestatd ? I'm currently working on a poc of vm balancing, but I would like to have something like 15min of 10s precision (90 samples of 10s). So currently I'm getting stats each 10s manually with PVE::API2Tools::extract_vm_stats like the ressource api. (This use PVE::Cluster::rrd_dump , but I don't understand the ipcc_. code. does it only return current streamed values? then after the rrdcached daemon is writing to rrd file the average values each minute ?) I don't known if we could have rrd files with 15min of 10s precision ? (don't known the write load impact on disks) Le mar. 13 oct. 2020 =C3=A0 08:05, Dietmar Maurer a = =C3=A9crit : > > I have notice that it's possible to get pressure info for each vm/ct > > through cgroups > > > > /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/qemu.slice/.scope/cpu.pressure > > /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/lxc//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. Bu= t > yes, > I think this would be useful. > >