On Tue, 4 May 2021 04:07:52 GMT, Argha C
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> OperatingSystemImpl.getCpuLoad() may return 1.0 in a container, even though
>> the CPU load is obviously below 100%.
>>
>> We created a 5-core container and run 4 "while (true)" loops in the
>> container. OperatingSystemImpl.getCpuLoad() returned 1.0, which is incorrect
>> (0.8 is correct).
>> "systemLoad" in getCpuLoad() is exactly 4.0 before "systemLoad =
>> Math.min(1.0, systemLoad);". The problem is caused by using the elapsed time
>> (specified by "cpu.cfs_period_us") instead of the total CPU time (specified
>> by "cpu.cfs_quota_us"). Therefore, it is more reasonable to divide cpu usage
>> time by "quotaNanos" instead of "elapsedNanos".
>
> src/jdk.management/unix/classes/com/sun/management/internal/OperatingSystemImpl.java
> line 142:
>
>> 140: long usageNanos = containerMetrics.getCpuUsage();
>> 141: if (numPeriods > 0 && usageNanos > 0) {
>> 142: long quotaNanos =
>> TimeUnit.MICROSECONDS.toNanos(quota * numPeriods);
>
> We happened to hit an exactly similar problem when running on a container
> with openjdk15.
>
> Given we effectively agree that the problem is `elapsedNanos` doesn't
> accurately reflect the cpu time allocated across all shares vs a single
> share, my proposal was to use `getCpuShares` as a multiplier for
> `periodLength` above.
> Is there a good reason `getCpuQuota` is a better alternative?
Hi Argha, thanks a lot for your suggestion. I think both "quota" and "share"
are worth considering. Let us look into the implementation of
`CgroupSubsystem::active_processor_count()` in OpenJDK HotSpot
(https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/hotspot/os/linux/cgroupSubsystem_linux.cpp).
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3656
