On 07/09/2013 05:00:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.07.2013, at 23:54, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 04:49:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Not sure I understand. What the timing stats do is that they
measure the time between [exit ... entry], right? We'd do the same
thing, just all in C code. That means we would become slightly less
accurate, but gain dynamic enabling of the traces and get rid of all
the timing stat asm code.
>
> Compile-time enabling bothers me less than a loss of accuracy (not
just a small loss by moving into C code, but a potential for a large
loss if we overflow the buffer)
Then don't overflow the buffer. Make it large enough.
How large is that? Does the tool recognize and report when overflow
happens?
How much will the overhead of running some python script on the host,
consuming a large volume of data, affect the results?
IIRC ftrace improved recently to dynamically increase the buffer size
too.
Steven, do I remember correctly here?
Yay more complexity.
So now we get to worry about possible memory allocations happening when
we try to log something? Or if there is a way to do an "atomic" log,
we're back to the "buffer might be full" situation.
> and a dependency on a userspace tool
We already have that for kvm_stat. It's a simple python script - and
you surely have python on your rootfs, no?
> (both in terms of the tool needing to be written, and in the hassle
of ensuring that it's present in the root filesystem of whatever
system I'm testing). And the whole mechanism will be more
complicated.
It'll also be more flexible at the same time. You could take the logs
and actually check what's going on to debug issues that you're
encountering for example.
We could even go as far as sharing the same tool with other
architectures, so that we only have to learn how to debug things once.
Have you encountered an actual need for this flexibility, or is it
theoretical?
Is there common infrastructure for dealing with measuring intervals and
tracking statistics thereof, rather than just tracking points and
letting userspace connect the dots (though it could still do that as an
option)? Even if it must be done in userspace, it doesn't seem like
something that should be KVM-specific.
> Lots of debug options are enabled at build time; why must this be
different?
Because I think it's valuable as debug tool for cases where compile
time switches are not the best way of debugging things. It's not a
high profile thing to tackle for me tbh, but I don't really think
working heavily on the timing stat thing is the correct path to walk
along.
Adding new exit types isn't "working heavily" on it.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
