[PATCH v2 0/5] Statsfs: a new ram-based file sytem for Linux kernel statistics

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 14/05/20 19:35, Jonathan Adams wrote:
>> In general for statsfs we took a more explicit approach where each
>> addend in a sum is a separate stats_fs_source.  In this version of the
>> patches it's also a directory, but we'll take your feedback and add both
>> the ability to hide directories (first) and to list values (second).
>> 
>> So, in the cases of interfaces and KVM objects I would prefer to keep
>> each addend separate.
>
> This just feels like a lot of churn just to add a statistic or object;
> in your model, every time a KVM or VCPU is created, you create the N
> statistics, leading to N*M total objects.

While it's N*M files, only O(M) statsfs API calls are needed to create
them.  Whether you have O(N*M) total kmalloc-ed objects or O(M) is an
implementation detail.

Having O(N*M) API calls would be a non-started, I agree - especially
once you start thinking of more efficient publishing mechanisms that
unlike files are also O(M).

>> For CPUs that however would be pretty bad.  Many subsystems might
>> accumulate stats percpu for performance reason, which would then be
>> exposed as the sum (usually).  So yeah, native handling of percpu values
>> makes sense.  I think it should fit naturally into the same custom
>> aggregation framework as hash table keys, we'll see if there's any devil
>> in the details.
>>
>> Core kernel stats such as /proc/interrupts or /proc/stat are the
>> exception here, since individual per-CPU values can be vital for
>> debugging.  For those, creating a source per stat, possibly on-the-fly
>> at hotplug/hot-unplug time because NR_CPUS can be huge, would still be
>> my preferred way to do it.
> 
> Our metricfs has basically two modes: report all per-CPU values (for
> the IPI counts etc; you pass a callback which takes a 'int cpu'
> argument) or a callback that sums over CPUs and reports the full
> value.  It also seems hard to have any subsystem with a per-CPU stat
> having to install a hotplug callback to add/remove statistics.

Yes, this is also why I think percpu values should have some kind of
native handling.  Reporting per-CPU values individually is the exception.

> In my model, a "CPU" parameter enum which is automatically kept
> up-to-date is probably sufficient for the "report all per-CPU values".

Yes (or a separate CPU source in my model).

Paolo

> Does this make sense to you?  I realize that this is a significant
> change to the model y'all are starting with; I'm willing to do the
> work to flesh it out.


> Thanks for your time,
> - Jonathan
> 
> P.S.  Here's a summary of the types of statistics we use in metricfs
> in google, to give a little context:
> 
> - integer values (single value per stat, source also a single value);
> a couple of these are boolean values exported as '0' or '1'.
> - per-CPU integer values, reported as a <cpuid, value> table
> - per-CPU integer values, summed and reported as an aggregate
> - single-value values, keys related to objects:
>     - many per-device (disk, network, etc) integer stats
>     - some per-device string data (version strings, UUIDs, and
> occasional statuses.)
> - a few histograms (usually counts by duration ranges)
> - the "function name" to count for the WARN statistic I mentioned.
> - A single statistic with two keys (for livepatch statistics; the
> value is the livepatch status as a string)
> 
> Most of the stats with keys are "complete" (every key has a value),
> but there are several examples of statistics where only some of the
> possible keys have values, or (e.g. for networking statistics) only
> the keys visible to the reading process (e.g. in its namespaces) are
> included.
>