Re: [Xen-devel] xenoprof patch for oprofile-0.9.7

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@darnok.org>]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:28:06PM -0500, William Cohen wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 05:45 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:09:34PM -0500, William Cohen wrote:
> >> I am rebasing Fedora rawhide oprofile package to oprofile-0.9.7. The xenoprof patches on http://xenoprof.sourceforge.net/#download look a bit dated. The newest version is for oprofile-0.9.5. 
> > 
> > There was one posted some time ago.. Ah:
> > http://www.flyn.org/patches/linux-xen-passive-oprofile/linux-3.0-xen-passive-oprofile.patch.gz
> > 
> > I think that ones works , thought I haven't had a chance to test it
> > myself.
> >>
> >> I massaged the patch oprofile-0.9.5-xen.patch to apply to oprofile-.0.9.7. Attached is that updated patch. Does this look reasonable? Is there a desire to get this into upstream oprofile? Or should the xenoprof patch be dropped?
> > 
> > Well, the desire is to get a performance tool in upstream that works
> > with Xen very very very much.
> > 
> > The upstream is using the 'perf' framework which is different from oprofile
> > and there hasn't been any patches to take advantage of it.
> > 
> > So to answer your question:
> >  1). Its awesome you have posted a patch. Will need to spend some time
> >      with it and and with the version that was posted to see if there is
> >      something missing. Sadly, the kernel patch is not very
> >      upstream-compatible as is. But it will get to folks be able to
> >      do some perf analysis instead of using benchmark tools.
> 
> If anyone can exercise the patch and verify that it works well with the current upstream xen, that would be greatly appreciated.

So I tried to do it today but running in trouble of compiling it on
Fedora Core 16. You wouldn't have any patches floating around to make it
compile? (I used first a virgin 0.9.7 version).

Thanks!
> 
> > 
> >  2). In the future we need to work out the optimal performance tool. It
> >      might be oprofile or it might be perf (or it might be both?!). Or
> >      it might something that has not yet been posted?
> > 
> > You wouldn't by any chance be interested in looking at the performance
> > "stuff" and figure out what is the best route/tools to use with upstream
> > kernels?
> 
> There has been some discussion for oprofile to make use of the perf interfaces in future versions of oprofile. The ARM oprofile kernel driver already uses the underlying perf support in the newer kernels. Making oprofile use the perf interface directly would allow normal users to use oprofile to see what is going on with their software and it would allow better cooperative resource allocation of the performance monitoring units.  Also perf allow keeping events on a per thread basis so there would be some hope that different virtual machines could use the counters concurrently.
> 
> perf hasn't been ideal. One of the common use cases would be using perf within a virtual machine, but perf didn't handle that case for the performance monitoring hardware. in the past perf claimed it programmed the performance monitoring hardware, but gave bogus measurements. Newer kernels in guest virtual machine now indicate can't hardware perf events are "<not supported>".  
> 
> -Will
> 
> 
> -Will
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Windows Azure Live!  Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for 
developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it 
provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online.  
Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure