On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:40:01 +0200 Martin Peschke wrote:
(I haven't forgotten that I owe you some review/feedback.
It's on my long todo list.)
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> >> 7) With regard to the delivery of statistic data to user land,
> >> a library maintaining statistic counters, histograms or whatever
> >> on behalf of exploiters doesn't need any help from the exploiter.
> >> We can avoid the usual callbacks and code bloat in exploiters
> >> this way.
> >
> > I don't really understand what you are stating here.
>
> Sorry.
> 1,$s/exploiter/client/g
>
> Any device driver or whatever gathering statistics data currently
> has code dealing with showing the data. Usually, they have some
> callbacks for procfs, sysfs or whatever.
>
> My point is that, if a library keeps track of statistics on behalf
> of its clients, no client needs to be called back in order to
> merge, format, copy, etc. data being shown to users. The library
> can handle as a background operation without disturbing clients.
That could be a good thing. OTOH, it means that the library
has to be either all-ways flexible or willing to change to
accommodate clients since you can't predict the universe of all
clients' requirements.
> >> 8) If some library functions are responsible for showing data, and the
> >> exploiter is not, we can achieve a common format for statistics data.
> >> For example, a histogram about block I/O has the same format as
> >> a histogram about network I/O.
> >> This provides ease of use and minimises the effort of writing
> >> scripts that could do further processing (e.g. formatting as
> >> spreadsheats or bar charts, comparison and summarisation of
> >> statistics, ...)
> >
> > Common functionality and formats would be wonderful. But I'm not sure
> > you can guarantee that we really want the network io and block io
> > statistics in the same format, as they are fundimentally different
> > things.
>
> Subsystems are free to gather as many/few statistics as required.
> And I am not trying to enforce semantics.
>
> All I am saying is that, if two statistics are aggregated using similar
> algorithms, then the results should be presented or formatted in a
> similar way.
Am I reading this correctly? Are you trying to put presentation
format in the statistics library in the kernel???
> My assumption is that the format of results doesn't depend on the
> the semantics of the data feeding a statistic. But it depends on the
> way we aggregate data.
>
> For example, there is no reason why statistic A of subsystem 1
> aggregated in the form of a histogram should have a different format
> than statistic B of subsystem 2 also being aggregated in the form
> of a histogram.
>
> A <=0 0
> A <=1 0
> A <=2 3
> A <=4 7
> A <=8 29
> A <=16 285
> A <=32 295
> A <=64 96
> A <=128 52
> A <=256 3
> A >256 1
>
>
> B <=10 1
> B <=20 3
> B <=30 92
> B <=40 251
> ...
> B <=490 34462
> B <=500 23434
> B >500 0
>
> Semantics are different; statistic names are different;
> number of buckets, "diameter" of buckets, scale etc. might be different;
> basic format of results is identical - as long as both statistics are
> aggregated the same way (as histograms, in this case).
>
> A library can provide a common format, because semantics just don't
> matter. Its statistic_add() function (or whatever we want to call it)
> has no idea about the actual semantics of the incremental statistic data
> it accepts and processes according to abstract rules.
>
> And I think a library should provide a common format, because it
> makes it fun poking in the aggregated data, and writing a script that
> does further processing of that data.
Do you mean a userspace library here? The statements still apply
to a userspace library.
> > Also, you will have to live with the existing interfaces, as we can't
> > break them, so porting them will not happen.
>
> Okay.
> A library could help to avoid a further proliferation of interfaces.
>
> >> 9) For performance reasons, per-cpu data and minimal locking
> >> (local_irq_save/restore) should be used.
> >> Adds to complexity, though.
> >
> > If necessary. Is this really necessary?
>
> I would think so.
Do your converted clients use all of the stat. infrastructure
interfaces or are some of them added just to round out the
full API?
> >> 14) Kernel code delivering statistics data through library routines
> >> can, at best, guess whether a user wants incremental updates be
> >> aggregated in a single counter, a set of counters (histograms), or
> >> in the form of other results. Users might want to change how much
> >> detail is retained in aggregated statistic results.
> >> Adds to complexity.
> >
> > Complexity where? Userspace or in the kernel?
>
> Complexity in the kernel. Sorry.
>
> When a statistics library allows users to chose from about half a
> dozen ways of aggregating data, then this adds to the complexity
> of that library to some degree.
> >> 21) Processing of (X, Y) according to abstract rules imposed by
> >> counters, histograms etc. doesn't require any knowledge about the
> >> semantics of X or Y.
> >>
> >> 22) There might be statistic counters that exploiters want to use and
> >> maintain on their own, and which users still may want to have a look at
> >> along with other statistics. Statistic_set() fits in here nicely.
> >
> >
> > Ok, these are all implementation details.
>
> Maybe. But at least 21) is fundamental, as it provides a base for
> writing such a library: The library deals with a defined form of
> data, regardless of the semantics of the data.
Does 22) make the library somewhat extensible? If not, does
anything do that?
> > Can you please step back a bit? What is the requirements that you are
> > trying to achieve here?
>
> Our customers have serious concerns that Linux has no means
> to gather SCSI performance data. Making sure we can get data from
> subsystems, we both provide for better service and give customers
> a good feeling.
>
> Statistics, and SCSI statistics in particular, are seen here as one
> of the more urgent things and real inhibitors on enterprise level.
>
> > A kernel-wide statistic gathering library?
>
> Yes, as a by-product of the specific SCSI requirement, so to speak.
> And, why not :)
>
> > If so, why? What has caused this to be needed?
>
> A clear distinction between code measuring statistics data and
> code handling statistics data makes for better code.
> There is no point in intermixing algorithms for processing
> statistics data and the semantics of statistics data.
>
> So what would you do if you got to write the N-th set of statistic
> functions?
>
> To me it looks like the next logical step to fully abstract
> statistics code out of a device driver.
>
> > And if it's needed, would
> > putting the stuff in debugfs for _all_ statistics really be a good idea
> > (hint, I would say no...)
>
> May I ask you why you think so.
>
> Well, so far I don't see a serious limitation in using debugfs.
> I think relayfs entries could be used to cover other requirements,
> if they pop up.
>
> And as I have explained, replacing debugfs by something else
> shouldn't be too difficult.
> But, I don't see a clear direction regarding this discussion.
>
> Or do you suggest that it would make sense to modularise that
> part of the code, so as to allow for other user interface code
> being "plugged in" and statistics data being shown through
> debugfs, procfs, netlink or whatever?
>
> >>>> And what does this mean for relayfs? Those developers tuned that code
> >>>> to the nth degree to get speed and other goodness, and here you go just
> >>>> ignoring that stuff and add yet another way to get stats out of the
> >>>> kernel. Why should I use this instead of my own code with relayfs?
> >>> Good questions.
> >> Relayfs is a nice feature, but not appropriate here.
> >>
> >> For example, during a performance measurements I have seen
> >> SCSI I/O related statistics being updated millions of times while
> >> I was just having a short lunch break. Some of them just increased
> >> a counter, which is pretty fast if done immediately in the kernel.
> >> If all these updates update would have to be relayed to user space
> >> to just increase a counter maintained in user space.. urgh, surely
> >> more expensive and not the way to go.
Oh really, I wouldn't expect such a poor design (of pushing each
counter update to userspace) to be considered seriously.
It should be more like a procfs^W sysfs entry at least, or something
similar to a MIB, or what iostat does. Does iostat not even
come close to what you want for SCSI I/O statistics?
> >> And what if user space isn't interested at all? Would we keep
> >> pumping zillions of unused updates into buffers instead of
> >> discarding them right away?
> >
> > Yes, for simple counters, relayfs is overkill. But so is an indirect
> > function call through a pointer for every simple counter update :)
>
> Got it.
>
> >> Profile.c, taskstats, genhd and all the other statistics listed
> >> above... they all maintain their counters in the kernel and
> >> show aggregated statistics to users.
> >
> > Yes, but will you be allowed to port the existing users over to your new
> > framework without breaking any userspace stuff? I don't see that
> > happening :(
>
> Would it be me porting...? ;-)
>
> I see this library as an offering to anybody who is looking
> for a comfortable and established way to dump statistic data,
> including me.
>
> >>>> And is the need for the in-kernel parser really necessary? I know it
> >>>> makes the userspace tools simpler (cat and echo), but should we be
> >>>> telling the kernel how to filter and adjust the data? Shouldn't we just
> >>>> dump it all to userspace and use tools there to manipulate it?
> >>> I agree again.
> >> Assumimg we can agree on in-kernel counters, histograms etc.
> >> allowing for attributes being adjusted by users makes sense.
> >>
> >> The parser stuff required for these attributes is implemented
> >> using match_token() & friends, which should be acceptible.
> >> But, I think that the standard way of using match_token() and
> >> strsep() needs improvement (strsep is destructive to strings
> >> parsed, which is painful).
> >
> > Yeah, the parser isn't as bad as I originally thought it was. But
> > overall, I'm still not sold on the real need for this kind of
> > subsystem/library.
>
> In my eyes, there are several indications that a library makes sense:
>
> We want statistics for various components.
> Many of the reinvent-the-wheel statistics have similar programming interfaces
> (e.g. compare disk_stat_add(), dasd_profile_counter(), profile_hit()).
> There is unnecessary code duplication.
> There is no need to have statistics user interface code spread throughout
> the kernel.
> A library can achieve a common output format, simplyfing user space.
> A defined programming interface makes it much easier to get a general
> idea of the statistics being around. An API gives more control and
> might help to avoid introducing redundant statistics or statistics of
> lesser importance.
>
> I am not saying that such a library has to look exactly like the
> proposed patches. I think that these patches contain some concepts
> worth considering.
Thanks.
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
