Re: [PATCH 0/26] oprofile: Performance counter multiplexing

[Robert Richter]

On 06.08.09 12:51:34, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Robert,
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Richter<robert.richter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The question is more if it makes sense. It's new to me dropping 
> > > user/kernel interfaces that are in use and forcing its 
> > > developers to rewrite their code. Oprofile is actively developed 
> > > and in many distros. It supports architectures perfcounters 
> > > doesn't. So, what do you want?
> > 
> > Maybe we can keep the ABIs in place but use a common machinery 
> > under the hood for both perf and oprofile? That said, I do expect 
> > oprofile ABIs to be special meaning that there's probably not a 
> > whole lot users other than the oprofile user-space tool? So if do 
> > convert the user-space tool to use sys_perf_counter_open() and put 
> > the in-kernel oprofile code into deep-maintenance mode, maybe we 
> > can eventually get rid of it?
> 
> Note, we dont need to (and dont want to) 'get rid of oprofile' - 
> that's not the point. Nobody is arguing for instant removal of 
> oprofile.

This sound good to me...

> All i'm arguing for is to not rewrite all oprofile drivers while we 
> try to extend perfcounters support. Robert's series does exactly 
> that and that's where my unhappiness comes from ...
>
> As you note it below, in terms of development it's quite a 
> distraction to have active development in both facilities, when 
> oprofile is arguably on the to-be-obsoleted side of the equation. 

Ingo, you can be sure, future implementations will keep the focus on
perfcounters. A single pmu implementation is that I prefer too, it
reduces development and testing efforts.

> Converting the user-space oprofile tools: instead of some in-kernel 
> wrappery, the right approach is to use the already existing high 
> level interface: to use sys_perf_counter_open() in the oprofile 
> daemon.
> 
> It only affects the sample collection daemon (which is a small 
> portion of oprofile user-space) and needs no kernel changes. This is 
> what i suggested to Robert before and i've seen no argument why this 
> cannot be done.
> 
> An added bonus is that the legacy oprofile kernel ABI can stay 
> completely untouched. (and the oprofile tooling can fall back to it)

I am fine with this. The oprofile daemon could be ported to use the
perfcounters i/f and existing oprofile tools that are not ported may
fall back to the legacy oprofile kernel ABI.

> And yes, AFAIK oprofile user-space is pretty much the only 
> user-space app that relies on the oprofile ABI - at least in the OSS 
> space. Robert, is there perhaps some bin-only oprofile based tool 
> that you implied before? Which one is it?

I know of hardware platform vendors using oprofile for system testing,
but I don't know exactly how their user-land looks like and whether
the daemon is used. AMD's CodeAnalyst tool (OSS) uses oprofile with an
own daemon.

> 
> > That said, the lack of architecture support for perf is definitely 
> > a blocker here...
> 
> Note, here's the current (roughly calculated, possibly inaccurate) 
> platform support matrix between oprofile and perfcounters:
> 
>     + : hw support available
>     0 : sw support available
>     - : no support
> 
>                         oprofile     perfcounters
>    alpha                   +             -
>    arm                     +             -
>    avr32                   +             -
>    blackfin                -             -
>    cris                    -             -
>    frv                     -             0
>    h8300                   -             -
>    ia64                    +             -
>    m32r                    -             -
>    m68k                    -             -
>    m68knommu               -             -
>    microblaze              -             -
>    mips                    +             0
>    mn10300                 -             -
>    parisc                  -             0
>    powerpc                 +             +
>    s390                    0             0
>    sh                      +             0
>    sparc                   0             0-[pending]
>    x86                     +             +
>    xtensa                  -             -
> 
> Takeaway points:
> 
>  - out of 20 hardware architectures, 8 have oprofile hw-PMU
>    support, 2 have timer-fallback support, 11 are not supported at 
>    all.
> 
>  - out of 20 hardware architectures, 2 have perfcounters hw-PMU 
>    support, 6 have sw event support, 12 are not supported at all.
> 
> The architectures with the biggest practical weight are: x86, 
> powerpc, arm, mips.
> 
> So there's a gap but it's not "all architectures" and the transition 
> to perfcounters is well underway. Still, oprofile obviously leads 
> (it has a 10 years headway) - and it's needed as a compatibility 
> option during the migration and even if perf had equivalent support 
> it would _still_ be around for some time as a pure ABI compatibility 
> thing.

Surely the argument of unsupported architectures will not be valid for
a long time as its number for PCL will probably decrease fast.

> 
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Richter<robert.richter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > And why not having more than one profiling subsystem in the 
> > > kernel? I see also more than one type of car on the street 
> > > though all of them have 4 wheels.
> > 
> > Well, so far I've only had bad experiences with duplicate 
> > functionality in the kernel be it a core kernel subsystem like 
> > slab or a device driver (broadcom and e100 come to mind). The 
> > problem is that you fragment tester and developer base and end up 
> > with a different set of bugs for each of the duplicate components 
> > causing more work than necessary. And what eventually happens is 
> > that you have only one component that's under active development 
> > but you can't get rid of the less active ones because people 
> > depend on them and the active one has corner case bugs that just 
> > don't get fixed.
> 
> Correct. That's my main point.

I don't want to have duplicate implementations, I want to have
multiple interfaces using the same in-kernel implementation. The code
base developed and tested will be the same then.

In the end I don't see much disagreement at all.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
email: robert.richter@xxxxxxx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/