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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 00/13] x86/PMU: Xen PMU PV support



On 11/09/13 19:22, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 09/11/2013 01:01 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
On 10/09/13 16:47, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 09/10/2013 11:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.09.13 at 17:20, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This version has following limitations:
* For accurate profiling of dom0/Xen dom0 VCPUs should be pinned.
* Hypervisor code is only profiled on processors that have running dom0 VCPUs
on them.
With that I assume this is an RFC rather than full-fledged submission?

I was thinking that this would be something like stage 1 implementation (and
probably should have mentioned this in the cover letter).

For this stage I wanted to confine all changes on Linux side to xen subtrees. Properly addressing the above limitation would likely require changes in non-xen
sources (change in perf file format, remote MSR access etc.).

I think having the vpmu stuff for PV guests is a great idea, and from a quick skim through I don't have any problems with the general approach. (Obviously some more detailed review will be needed.)

However, I'm not a fan of this method of collecting perf stuff for Xen and other VMs together in the cpu buffers for dom0. I think it's ugly, fragile, and non-scalable, and I would prefer to see if we could implement the same feature (allowing perf to analyze Xen and other vcpus) some other way. And I would rather not use it as a "stage 1", for fear that it would become entrenched.

I can see how collecting samples for other domains may be questionable now (DOM0_PRIV mode) since at this stage there is no way to distinguish between samples for non-priviledged domains.

But why do you think that getting data for both dom0 and Xen is problematic? Someone has to process Xen's samples and who would do this if not dom0? We could store samples in separate files (e.g. perf.data.dom0 and perf.data.xen) but that's toolstack's job.

It's not so much about dom0 collecting the samples and passing them on to the analysis tools; this is already what xenalyze does, in essence. It's about the requirement of having the dom0 vcpus pinned 1-1 to physical cpus: both limiting the flexibility for scheduling, and limiting the configuration flexibility wrt having dom0 vcpus < pcpus. That is what seems an ugly hack to me -- having dom0 sort of try to do something that requires hypervisor-level privileges and making a bit of a mess of it.

I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with the perf system to know exactly what it is that Linux needs to do (why, for example, you think it would need remote MSR access if dom0 weren't pinned), and how hard would be for Xen just to do that work, and provide an "adapter" that would translate Xen-specific stuff into something perf could consume. Would it be possible, for example, for dom0 to specify what needed to be collected, for Xen to generate the samples in a Xen-specific format, and then have something in dom0 that would separate the samples into one file per domain that look similar enough to a trace file that the perf system could consume it?

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.