[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BA23AF3.1020209@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:38:43 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"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,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
project
On 03/17/2010 03:10 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Anthony Liguori<anthony@...emonkey.ws> wrote:
>
>
>> On 03/16/2010 12:39 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>>> If we look at the use-case, it's going to be something like, a user is
>>>> creating virtual machines and wants to get performance information about
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Having to run a separate tool like perf is not going to be what they would
>>>> expect they had to do. Instead, they would either use their existing GUI
>>>> tool (like virt-manager) or they would use their management interface
>>>> (either QMP or libvirt).
>>>>
>>>> The complexity of interaction is due to the fact that perf shouldn't be a
>>>> stand alone tool. It should be a library or something with a programmatic
>>>> interface that another tool can make use of.
>>>>
>>> But ... a GUI interface/integration is of course possible too, and it's being
>>> worked on.
>>>
>>> perf is mainly a kernel developer tool, and kernel developers generally dont
>>> use GUIs to do their stuff: which is the (sole) reason why its first ~850
>>> commits of tools/perf/ were done without a GUI. We go where our developers
>>> are.
>>>
>>> In any case it's not an excuse to have no proper command-line tooling. In fact
>>> if you cannot get simpler, more atomic command-line tooling right then you'll
>>> probably doubly suck at doing a GUI as well.
>>>
>> It's about who owns the user interface.
>>
>> If qemu owns the user interface, than we can satisfy this in a very simple
>> way by adding a perf monitor command. If we have to support third party
>> tools, then it significantly complicates things.
>>
> Of course illogical modularization complicates things 'significantly'.
>
Ok. Then apply this to the kernel. I'm then happy to take patches.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
View attachment "qemu-linux.patch" of type "text/plain" (1205 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists