linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:20:52 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, ziteng.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from
 host side


* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 03/16/2010 11:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
> >
> >>On 03/16/2010 09:24 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>* Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 03/16/2010 07:27 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> >>>>>From: Zhang, Yanmin<yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Based on the discussion in KVM community, I worked out the patch to support
> >>>>>perf to collect guest os statistics from host side. This patch is implemented
> >>>>>with Ingo, Peter and some other guys' kind help. Yang Sheng pointed out a
> >>>>>critical bug and provided good suggestions with other guys. I really appreciate
> >>>>>their kind help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The patch adds new subcommand kvm to perf.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   perf kvm top
> >>>>>   perf kvm record
> >>>>>   perf kvm report
> >>>>>   perf kvm diff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The new perf could profile guest os kernel except guest os user space, but it
> >>>>>could summarize guest os user space utilization per guest os.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Below are some examples.
> >>>>>1) perf kvm top
> >>>>>[root@...-ne01 norm]# perf kvm --host --guest --guestkallsyms=/home/ymzhang/guest/kallsyms
> >>>>>--guestmodules=/home/ymzhang/guest/modules top
> >>>>>
> >>>>Excellent, support for guest kernel != host kernel is critical (I
> >>>>can't remember the last time I ran same kernels).
> >>>>
> >>>>How would we support multiple guests with different kernels? Perhaps a
> >>>>symbol server that perf can connect to (and that would connect to guests in
> >>>>turn)?
> >>>The highest quality solution would be if KVM offered a 'guest extension' to
> >>>the guest kernel's /proc/kallsyms that made it easy for user-space to get this
> >>>information from an authorative source.
> >>>
> >>>That's the main reason why the host side /proc/kallsyms is so popular and so
> >>>useful: while in theory it's mostly redundant information which can be gleaned
> >>>from the System.map and other sources of symbol information, it's easily
> >>>available and is _always_ trustable to come from the host kernel.
> >>>
> >>>Separate System.map's have a tendency to go out of sync (or go missing when a
> >>>devel kernel gets rebuilt, or if a devel package is not installed), and server
> >>>ports (be that a TCP port space server or an UDP port space mount-point) are
> >>>both a configuration hassle and are not guest-transparent.
> >>>
> >>>So for instrumentation infrastructure (such as perf) we have a large and well
> >>>founded preference for intrinsic, built-in, kernel-provided information: i.e.
> >>>a largely 'built-in' and transparent mechanism to get to guest symbols.
> >>The symbol server's client can certainly access the bits through vmchannel.
> >Ok, that would work i suspect.
> >
> >Would be nice to have the symbol server in tools/perf/ and also make it easy
> >to add it to the initrd via a .config switch or so.
> >
> >That would have basically all of the advantages of being built into the kernel
> >(availability, configurability, transparency, hackability), while having all
> >the advantages of a user-space approach as well (flexibility, extensibility,
> >robustness, ease of maintenance, etc.).
> 
> Note, I am not advocating building the vmchannel client into the host 
> kernel. [...]

Neither am i. What i suggested was a user-space binary/executable built in 
tools/perf and put into the initrd.

That approach has the advantages i listed above, without having the 
disadvantages of in-kernel code you listed.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/