* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/22/2010 01:23 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>IMO the reason perf is more usable than oprofile has less to do with the > >>kernel/userspace boundary and more do to with effort and attention spent on > >>the userspace/user boundary. > >> > >>[...] > > > > If you are interested in the first-hand experience of the people who are > > doing the perf work then here it is: by far the biggest reason for perf > > success and perf usability is the integration of the user-space tooling > > with the kernel-space bits, into a single repository and project. > > Please take a look at the kvm integration code in qemu as a fraction of the > whole code base. You have to admit that much of Qemu's past 2-3 years of development was motivated by Linux/KVM (i'd say more than 50% of the code). As such it's one and the same code base - you just continue to define Qemu to be different from KVM. I very much remember how Qemu looked like _before_ KVM: it was a struggling, dying project. KVM clearly changed that. > > The very move you are opposing so vehemently for KVM. > > I don't want to fracture a working community. Would you accept (or at least not NAK) a new tools/kvm/ tool that builds tooling from grounds up, while leaving Qemu untouched? [assuming it's all clean code, etc.] Although i have doubts about how well that would work 'against' your opinion: such a tool would need lots of KVM-side features and a positive attitude from you to be really useful. There's a lot of missing functionality to cover. > > Oprofile went the way you proposed, and it was a failure. It failed not > > because it was bad technology (it was pretty decent and people used it), > > it was not a failure because the wrong people worked on it (to the > > contrary, very capable people worked on it), it was a failure in hindsight > > because it simply incorrectly split into two projects which stiffled the > > progress of each other. > > Every project that has some kernel footprint, except perf, is split like > that. Are they all failures? No. Did i ever claim KVM was a failure? I said it's hindered by this design aspect. Are other Linux kernel tool projects affected by similar problems? You bet ... > Seems like perf is also split, with sysprof being developed outside the > kernel. Will you bring sysprof into the kernel? Will every feature be > duplicated in prof and sysprof? I'd prefer if sysprof merged into perf as 'perf view' - but its maintainer does not want that - which is perfectly OK. So we are building equivalent functionality into perf instead. Think about it like Firefox plugins: the main Firefox project picks up the functionality of the most popular Firefox plugins all the time. Session Saver, Tab Mix Plus, etc. were all in essence 'merged' (in functionality, not in code) into the 'reference' Firefox project. I think that's a fundamentally healthy model: it allows extensions and thus give others an honest chance to show that you are potentially coding an inferior piece of code - but also express a clear opinion about what you consider a full, usable, high-quality reference implementation and constantly improve this reference implementation. I dont think that can be argued to be a bad model. Yes, it takes a bit of thinking outside the box to do tools/kvm/ but of all people i'd expect some of that from you. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
