Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 03/22/2010 06:51 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>>> The crux of the problem is very simple. To quote my earlier mail:
>>>
>>>   |
>>>   | - The inconvenience of having to type:
>>>   |      perf kvm --host --guest --guestkallsyms=/home/ymzhang/guest/kallsyms \
>>>   |               --guestmodules=/home/ymzhang/guest/modules top
>>>   |
>>>   |
>>>   |   is very obvious even with a single guest. Now multiply that by more guests ...
>>>   |
>>>
>>> For example we want 'perf kvm top' to do something useful by default: it
>>> should find the first guest running and it should report its profile.
>>>
>>> The tool shouldnt have to guess about where the guests are, what their
>>> namespaces is and how to talk to them. We also want easy symbolic access to
>>> guest, for example:
>>>
>>>    perf kvm -g OpenSuse-2 record sleep 1
>>>        
> [ Sidenote: i still received no adequate suggestions about how to provide this
>    category of technical features. ]
>    

You need to integrate with libvirt to convert guest names something that 
can be used to obtain guest symbols.

>>> I.e.:
>>>
>>>   - Easy default reference to guest instances, and a way for tools to
>>>     reference them symbolically as well in the multi-guest case. Preferably
>>>     something trustable and kernel-provided - not some indirect information
>>>     like a PID file created by libvirt-manager or so.
>>>        
>> Usually 'layering violation' is trotted out at such suggestions.
>> [...]
>>      
> That's weird, how can a feature request be a 'layering violation'?
>    

The 'something trustable and kernel-provided'.  The kernel knows nothing 
about guest names.

> If something that users find straightforward and usable is a layering
> violation to you (such as easily being able to access their own files on the
> host as well ...) then i think you need to revisit the definition of that term
> instead of trying to fix the user.
>    

Here is the explanation, you left it quoted:

>> [...]  I don't like using the term, because sometimes the layers are
>> incorrect and need to be violated.  But it should be done explicitly, not as
>> a shortcut for a minor feature (and profiling is a minor feature, most users
>> will never use it, especially guest-from-host).
>>
>> The fact is we have well defined layers today, kvm virtualizes the cpu and
>> memory, qemu emulates devices for a single guest, libvirt manages guests.
>> We break this sometimes but there has to be a good reason.  So perf needs to
>> talk to libvirt if it wants names.  Could be done via linking, or can be
>> done using a pluging libvirt drops into perf.

>> You simply kept ignoring me when I said that if something can be kept out of
>> the kernel without impacting performance, it should be. I don't want
>> emergency patches closing some security hole or oops in a kernel symbol
>> server.
>>      
> I never suggested an "in kernel space symbol server" which could oops, why
> would i have suggested that? Please point me to an email where i suggested
> that.
>    

You insisted that it be in the kernel.  Later you relaxed that and said 
a daemon is fine.  I'm not going to reread this thread, once is more 
than enough.

>> The usability argument is a red herring.  True, it takes time for things to
>> trickle down to distributions and users.  Those who can't wait can download
>> the code and compile, it isn't that difficult.
>>      
> It's not just "download and compile", it's also "configure correctly for
> several separate major distributions" and "configure to per guest instance
> local rules".
>    

That's life in Linux-land.  Either you let distributions feed you cooked 
packages and relax, or you do the work yourself.  If we had 
tools/everything/ it wouldn't be this way, but we don't.

> It's far more fragile in practice than you make it appear to be, and since you
> yourself expressed that you are not interested much in the tooling side, how
> can you have adequate experience to judge such matters?
>    

People on kvm-devel manage to build and run release tarballs and even 
directly from git.  I build packages from source occasionally.  It isn't 
fun but it doesn't take a PhD.

> In fact for instrumentation it's beyond a critical threshold of fragility -
> instrumentation above all needs to be accessible, transparent and robust.
>
> If you cannot see the advantages of a properly integrated solution then i
> suspect there's not much i can do to convince you.
>    

Integration in Linux happens at the desktop or distribution level.  You 
want to move it to the kernel level.  It works for perf, great, but that 
doesn't mean it will work for everything else.  Once perf grows a GUI, I 
expect it will stop working for perf as well (for example, if gtk breaks 
its API in a major release, which version will perf code for?)

> And you ignored not just me but you ignored several people in this thread who
> thought the current status quo was inadequate and expressed interest in both
> the VFS integration and in the guest enumeration features.
>    

I'm sorry.  I don't reply to every email.  If you want my opinion on 
something, you can ask me again.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function