Re: PATCH [0/4] perf: clean-up of power events API

Ingo Molnar
2010-10-10T12:19:28Z

* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2010 11:28 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Mathieu Desnoyers<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> >
> >>* Arjan van de Ven (arjan@linux.intel.com) wrote:
> >>> On 10/8/2010 1:38 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>>The fundamental thing about tracing/instrumentation is that there
> >>>>are no deep ABI needs: it's all about analyzing development kernels
> >>>>(and a few select versions that get the enterprise treatment) but
> >>>>otherwise the half-life of this kind of information is very short.
> >>>>
> >>>>So we dont want to tie ourselves down with excessive ABIs.
> >>>ok I'll start working on a second mechanism then to export
> >>>information that applications need ;-( it'll look a lot like tracing
> >>>I suppose ;-(
> >>What's wrong with doing the compatibility layer in a LGPL library
> >>shipped with the kernel tree under tools/ ? Why does everything *have*
> >>to be done in kernel-space ? Why are you so focused on making your
> >>application interact directly with kernel ABIs ?
> >The thing is, Arjan is 100% right that a library for this is not a
> >'solution', it's an unnecessary complication.
> >
> >What i suggested in my mail was to _keep existing events_. I.e. do not
> >break powertop. We are 100% happy that we _have_ such apps, and we
> >should do reasonable things to not break them.
> >
> >If we need to change events, we can add a new event. The old events will
> >lose their relevance without us having to do much - and without us
> >having to break powertop, pytimechart, etc. We can even have periods of
> >overlap when both events are available - to give instrumentation apps
> >time to learn the new events.
> >
> >I.e. it's not an ABI in the classic sense - we do not (because we
> >cannot) guarantee the infinite availability of these events. But we can
> >guarantee that the fields do not change in some stupid, avoidable way.
>
> also I have to say that some events are more likely to change than others
>
> "function foo in the kernel called" is more likely to change than "the
> processor went to THIS frequency". The concept of CPU frequencies has
> been with us fora long time and is going to be there for a long time
> as well ......

Most definitely. It's no accident that it took such a long time for this
issue to be raised in the first place. It's a rare occurance - and then
we can deal with it intelligently, without breaking stuff unnecessarily.

Thanks,

Ingo