On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:13:40 +0100, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stepping back a bit, this is one piece of the larger issue of how to > modernize KVM for hyperscale usage. BPF and tracing are great when > the debugger has root access to the machine and can rerun the > failing workload at will. They're useless for identifying trends > across large numbers of machines, triaging failures after the fact, > debugging performance issues with workloads that the debugger > doesn't have direct access to, etc... Which is why I suggested the use of trace points as kernel module hooks to perform whatever accounting you require. This would give you the same level of detail this series exposes. And I'm all for adding these hooks where it matters as long as they are not considered ABI and don't appear in /sys/debug/tracing (in general, no userspace visibility). The scheduler is a interesting example of this, as it exposes all sort of hooks for people to look under the hood. No user of the hook? No overhead, no additional memory used. I may have heard that Android makes heavy use of this. Because I'm pretty sure that whatever stat we expose, every cloud vendor will want their own variant, so we may just as well put the matter in their own hands. I also wouldn't discount BPF as a possibility. You could perfectly have permanent BPF programs running from the moment you boot the system, and use that to generate your histograms. This isn't necessary a one off, debug only solution. > Logging is a similar story, e.g. using _ratelimited() printk to aid > debug works well when there are a very limited number of VMs and > there is a human that can react to arbitrary kernel messages, but > it's basically useless when there are 10s or 100s of VMs and taking > action on a kernel message requires a prior knowledge of the > message. I'm not sure logging is remotely the same. For a start, the kernel should not log anything unless something has oopsed (and yes, I still have some bits to clean on the arm64 side). I'm not even sure what you would want to log. I'd like to understand the need here, because I feel like I'm missing something. > I'm certainly not expecting other people to solve our challenges, > and I fully appreciate that there are many KVM users that don't care > at all about scalability, but I'm hoping we can get the community at > large, and especially maintainers and reviewers, to also consider > at-scale use cases when designing, implementing, reviewing, etc... My take is that scalability has to go with flexibility. Anything that gets hardcoded will quickly become a burden: I definitely regret adding the current KVM trace points, as they don't show what I need, and I can't change them as they are ABI. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
