On 03/22/2010 04:54 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Pekka Enberg<penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Avi,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 am glad you brought it up! Sysprof was historically outside of the kernel
(with it's own kernel module, actually). While the GUI was nice, it was much
harder to set up compared to oprofile so it wasn't all that popular. Things
improved slightly when Ingo merged the custom kernel module but the
_userspace_ part of sysprof was lagging behind a bit. I don't know what's
the situation now that they've switched over to perf syscalls but you
probably get my point.
It would be nice if the two projects merged but I honestly don't see any
fundamental problem with two (or more) co-existing projects. Friendly
competition will ultimately benefit the users (think KDE and Gnome here).
See my previous mail - what i see as the most healthy project model is to have
a full solution reference implementation, connected to a flexible halo of
plugins or sub-apps.
Firefox does that, KDE does that, and Gnome as well to a certain degree.
The 'halo' provides a constant feedback of new features, and it also provides
competition and pressure on the 'main' code to be top-notch.
The problem i see with KVM is that there's no reference implementation! There
is _only_ the KVM kernel part which is not functional in itself. Surrounded by
a 'halo' - where none of the entities is really 'the' reference implementation
we call 'KVM'.
The reference implementation is qemu-kvm.git, in the future qemu.git.
Like the reference implementation of device-mapper is
lvm2/device-mapper, not tools/device-mapper.
This causes constant quality problems as the developers of the main project
dont have constant pressure towards good quality (it is not their
responsibility to care about user-space bits after all),
The developers of the main project are very much aware that users don't
call the ioctls directly but instead use qemu.
plus it causes a lack
of focus as well: integration between (friendly) competing user-space
components is a lot harder than integration within a single framework such as
Firefox.
We are very focused, just not on what you think we should be focused.
I hope this explains my points about modularization a bit better! I suggested
KVM to grow a user-space tool component in the kernel repo in tools/kvm/,
which would become the reference implementation for tooling. User-space
projects can still provide alternative tooling or can plug into this tooling,
just like they are doing it now. So the main effect isnt even on those
projects but on the kernel developers. The ABI remains and all the user-space
packages and projects remain.
Seems like wanton duplication of effort. Can we throw so many
developer-years away on duplicate projects? Assuming not all are true
volunteers (85% for 2.6.33) who will fund this duplicate effort?
Yes, i thought Qemu would be a prime candidate to be the baseline for
tools/kvm/, but i guess that has become socially impossible now after this
flamewar. It's not a big problem in the big scheme of things: tools/kvm/ is
best grown up from a small towards larger size anyway ...
Qemu is open source, you can cp it into tools/kvm. Rewriting it from
scratch is a mammoth effort, there's a reason kvm, Xen, and virtualbox
all use qemu. Qemu itself copied code from bochs. Writing this stuff
is hard, especially if there is something already working.
You'll probably get much better threading (the qemu device model is
still single threaded), but it will take years to reach where qemu is
already at.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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
