| Message ID | 1456239585-13324-2-git-send-email-den@openvz.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > and dances with Libvirt. > > This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > and can influence test results. > > Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > regular names. > > Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> This seems to open the ABI to abuse. Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. How about adding this within #if 0 statements? You can uncomment them for debugging ... > --- > hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c > index a382f43..1740293 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c > @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static const char *balloon_stat_names[] = { > */ > static inline void reset_stats(VirtIOBalloon *dev) > { > - int i; > - for (i = 0; i < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR; dev->stats[i++] = -1); > + dev->stats_cnt = 0; > } > > static bool balloon_stats_supported(const VirtIOBalloon *s) > @@ -133,12 +132,20 @@ static void balloon_stats_get_all(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name, > if (err) { > goto out_end; > } > - for (i = 0; i < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR; i++) { > - visit_type_uint64(v, balloon_stat_names[i], &s->stats[i], &err); > + for (i = 0; i < s->stats_cnt; i++) { > + if (s->stats[i].tag < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR) { > + visit_type_uint64(v, balloon_stat_names[s->stats[i].tag], > + &s->stats[i].val, &err); > + } else { > + gchar *str = g_strdup_printf("x-stat-%04x", s->stats[i].tag); > + visit_type_uint64(v, str, &s->stats[i].val, &err); > + g_free(str); > + } > if (err) { > break; > } > } > + > error_propagate(errp, err); > err = NULL; > visit_end_struct(v, &err); > @@ -273,10 +280,21 @@ static void virtio_balloon_receive_stats(VirtIODevice *vdev, VirtQueue *vq) > == sizeof(stat)) { > uint16_t tag = virtio_tswap16(vdev, stat.tag); > uint64_t val = virtio_tswap64(vdev, stat.val); > + int i; > > offset += sizeof(stat); > - if (tag < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR) > - s->stats[tag] = val; > + for (i = 0; i < s->stats_cnt; i++) { > + if (s->stats[i].tag == tag) { > + break; > + } > + } > + if (i < ARRAY_SIZE(s->stats)) { > + s->stats[i].tag = tag; > + s->stats[i].val = val; > + if (s->stats_cnt <= i) { > + s->stats_cnt = i + 1; > + } > + } > } > s->stats_vq_offset = offset; > > diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h > index 35f62ac..5c8730e 100644 > --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h > +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h > @@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ typedef struct VirtIOBalloon { > VirtQueue *ivq, *dvq, *svq; > uint32_t num_pages; > uint32_t actual; > - uint64_t stats[VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR]; > + VirtIOBalloonStatModern stats[VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32]; > + uint16_t stats_cnt; > VirtQueueElement *stats_vq_elem; > size_t stats_vq_offset; > QEMUTimer *stats_timer; > -- > 2.1.4
On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >> >> We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies >> based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different >> guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation >> and dances with Libvirt. >> >> This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. >> This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new >> balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative >> is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters >> and can influence test results. >> >> Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. >> Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the >> queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', >> where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their >> regular names. >> >> Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> >> CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > You can uncomment them for debugging ... I'd prefer to have this enabled. Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? Actually the amount of host data is limited. If the guest will send fake stats before real ones - this guest is not cooperative and in this case the guest can hust ignore any balloon change requests.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > >> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > >>and dances with Libvirt. > >> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > >>and can influence test results. > >> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > >>regular names. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools bypassing qemu. > Actually the amount of host data is limited. If the guest > will send fake stats before real ones - this guest is > not cooperative and in this case the guest can > hust ignore any balloon change requests.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > >> > > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > > >>and dances with Libvirt. > > >> > > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > > >>and can influence test results. > > >> > > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > > >>regular names. > > >> > > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > > > > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? > > Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools > bypassing qemu. I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them as unstable so people using them take their risk. One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. [ Yes I've seen Den having posted a version hiding this under #ifdef, but I'd still be interested to know why the initial proposal wasn't found generally useful ] Thanks, Roman.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:01:34PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > > >> > > > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > > > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > > > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > > > >>and dances with Libvirt. > > > >> > > > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > > > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > > > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > > > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > > > >>and can influence test results. > > > >> > > > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > > > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > > > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > > > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > > > >>regular names. > > > >> > > > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > > > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > > > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > > > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > > > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > > > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > > > > > > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? > > > > Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools > > bypassing qemu. > > I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Because we'll be stuck maintaining them with these x- names. > Even the existing stats are > simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing > other than assigning text labels. > > The proposed naming scheme for > unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them > as unstable so people using them take their risk. > > One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. > [ Yes I've seen Den having posted a version hiding this under #ifdef, but I'd > still be interested to know why the initial proposal wasn't found > generally useful ] > > Thanks, > Roman.
On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > > Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, > and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. We've explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that).
On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. >> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, >> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. > Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. We've > explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go > away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a > feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed > and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. Thank you.
"Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their >>>>> > >>regular names. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? >>>>> >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools >>>>> bypassing qemu. Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. >>>> >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) >> We've >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). >> > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. Looks like fair use of x- to me.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: > > > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > >>>>> > >>regular names. > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > > Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an > opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. > > >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? > >>>>> > >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools > >>>>> bypassing qemu. > > Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to > reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or > semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that > happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling > that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. > > >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are > >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing > >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for > >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them > >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. > >>>> > >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, > >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. > >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. > > Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever > QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) > > >> We've > >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go > >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a > >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed > >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). > >> > > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are > > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd > > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. > > Looks like fair use of x- to me. Well I already heard: One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. in this thread, which seems to mean exactly that people start planning to abuse it even before it's merged.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:54:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: > > > > > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > > >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > > >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > > >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > > >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > > >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > > >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > > >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > > >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > > >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > > >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > > >>>>> > >>regular names. > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > > >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > > >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > > >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > > >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > > >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > > > > Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an > > opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. > > > > >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools > > >>>>> bypassing qemu. > > > > Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to > > reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or > > semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that > > happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling > > that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. > > > > >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are > > >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing > > >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for > > >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them > > >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. > > >>>> > > >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > > >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > > >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > > >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, > > >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. > > >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. > > > > Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever > > QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) > > > > >> We've > > >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go > > >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a > > >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed > > >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). > > >> > > > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are > > > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd > > > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. > > > > Looks like fair use of x- to me. > > > Well I already heard: > > One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > > in this thread, which seems to mean exactly that people start planning to abuse it > even before it's merged. That quote (from yours truly) states the opposite. The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, right?). Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management software anyway. Roman.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:30:21PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:54:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: > > > > > > > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > > >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > > >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > > > >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > > > >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > > > >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > > > >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > > > >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > > > >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > > > >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > > > >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > > > >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > > > >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > > > >>>>> > >>regular names. > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > > > >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > > > >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > > > >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > > > >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > > > >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > > > > > > Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an > > > opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. > > > > > > >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools > > > >>>>> bypassing qemu. > > > > > > Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to > > > reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or > > > semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that > > > happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling > > > that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. > > > > > > >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are > > > >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing > > > >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for > > > >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them > > > >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > > > >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > > > >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > > > >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, > > > >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. > > > >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. > > > > > > Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever > > > QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) > > > > > > >> We've > > > >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go > > > >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a > > > >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed > > > >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). > > > >> > > > > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are > > > > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd > > > > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. > > > > > > Looks like fair use of x- to me. > > > > > > Well I already heard: > > > > One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > > graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > > can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > > > > in this thread, which seems to mean exactly that people start planning to abuse it > > even before it's merged. > > That quote (from yours truly) states the opposite. > > The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, > with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common > "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, > right?). For most devices it's the virtio spec. > Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the > guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches > up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", > as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. > > So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged > into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance > burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I > sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management > software anyway. > > Roman. Basically if you do this hack QEMU must not reuse the x-stat-NEW_NUMBER ever, otherwise management handling it will intepret it as legacy QEMU and will break. And the fact we have to argue about it tells me this is a dangerous place to put the debugging hooks since it seems to be begging to be misused.
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:30:21PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:54:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: >> > > >> > > > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> > > >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: >> > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> > > >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> > > >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >> > > >>>>> > >> >> > > >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies >> > > >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different >> > > >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation >> > > >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. >> > > >>>>> > >> >> > > >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. >> > > >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new >> > > >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative >> > > >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters >> > > >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. >> > > >>>>> > >> >> > > >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. >> > > >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the >> > > >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', >> > > >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their >> > > >>>>> > >>regular names. >> > > >>>>> > >> >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> >> > > >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> > > >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. >> > > >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. >> > > >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? >> > > >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... >> > > >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. >> > > >> > > Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an >> > > opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. >> > > >> > > >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools >> > > >>>>> bypassing qemu. >> > > >> > > Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to >> > > reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or >> > > semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that >> > > happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling >> > > that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. >> > > >> > > >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are >> > > >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing >> > > >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for >> > > >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them >> > > >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >> > > >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >> > > >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. >> > > >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, >> > > >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. >> > > >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. >> > > >> > > Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever >> > > QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) >> > > >> > > >> We've >> > > >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go >> > > >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a >> > > >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed >> > > >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). >> > > >> >> > > > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are >> > > > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd >> > > > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. >> > > >> > > Looks like fair use of x- to me. >> > >> > >> > Well I already heard: >> > >> > One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >> > graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >> > can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. >> > >> > in this thread, which seems to mean exactly that people start planning to abuse it >> > even before it's merged. >> >> That quote (from yours truly) states the opposite. >> >> The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, >> with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common >> "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, >> right?). > > For most devices it's the virtio spec. > >> Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the >> guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches >> up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", >> as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. >> >> So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged >> into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance >> burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I >> sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management >> software anyway. >> >> Roman. > > Basically if you do this hack QEMU must not reuse the x-stat-NEW_NUMBER > ever, otherwise management handling it will intepret it > as legacy QEMU and will break. No, QEMU should aggressively reuse the number part. Heck, it's free to randomly mess with it without notice. Makes the x-stat-N effectively useless for anything but experimenting. Which is exactly the point of naming them x-. > And the fact we have to argue about it tells me this is > a dangerous place to put the debugging hooks since it > seems to be begging to be misused. x-things always look like they'd invite misuse. That look goes away fast when your misuse breaks on every other QEMU upgrade.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:30:21PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:54:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> > > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: > >> > > > >> > > > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > >> > > >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > > >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > >> > > >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies > >> > > >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different > >> > > >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation > >> > > >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > >> > > >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. > >> > > >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new > >> > > >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative > >> > > >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters > >> > > >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > >> > > >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. > >> > > >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the > >> > > >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', > >> > > >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their > >> > > >>>>> > >>regular names. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> > >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> > >> > > >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >> > > >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. > >> > > >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. > >> > > >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? > >> > > >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... > >> > > >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. > >> > > > >> > > Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an > >> > > opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. > >> > > > >> > > >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools > >> > > >>>>> bypassing qemu. > >> > > > >> > > Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to > >> > > reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or > >> > > semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that > >> > > happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling > >> > > that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. > >> > > > >> > > >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are > >> > > >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing > >> > > >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for > >> > > >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them > >> > > >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > >> > > >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > >> > > >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > >> > > >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, > >> > > >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. > >> > > >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. > >> > > > >> > > Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever > >> > > QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) > >> > > > >> > > >> We've > >> > > >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go > >> > > >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a > >> > > >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed > >> > > >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). > >> > > >> > >> > > > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are > >> > > > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd > >> > > > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. > >> > > > >> > > Looks like fair use of x- to me. > >> > > >> > > >> > Well I already heard: > >> > > >> > One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have > >> > graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, > >> > can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. > >> > > >> > in this thread, which seems to mean exactly that people start planning to abuse it > >> > even before it's merged. > >> > >> That quote (from yours truly) states the opposite. > >> > >> The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, > >> with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common > >> "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, > >> right?). > > > > For most devices it's the virtio spec. > > > >> Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the > >> guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches > >> up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", > >> as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. > >> > >> So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged > >> into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance > >> burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I > >> sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management > >> software anyway. > >> > >> Roman. > > > > Basically if you do this hack QEMU must not reuse the x-stat-NEW_NUMBER > > ever, otherwise management handling it will intepret it > > as legacy QEMU and will break. > > No, QEMU should aggressively reuse the number part. Heck, it's free to > randomly mess with it without notice. Makes the x-stat-N effectively > useless for anything but experimenting. Which is exactly the point of > naming them x-. I must be missing something... QEMU has no business with the number at all unless it recognizes it; in that case it only replaces the dumb x-stat-N label with the one it knows. How can it "randomly mess with it"? Let's get this straight: the only thing QEMU does with balloon stats is marshalling them into json. (For that matter, libvirt only unmarshalls them back into an array of (int tag, long value) pairs so is similar.) Basically QEMU only plays the role of transport for memory stats between the guest driver and the management layer; I'm not even sure why it has to know what the individual fields mean. What this patch proposes is essentially to make QEMU not stand in the way of the data it transports; it's only the endpoints' responsibility to agree on the interpretation of the contents. Roman.
Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:30:21PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:54:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> > > "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org> writes: >> >> > > >> >> > > > On 02/24/2016 06:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> >> > > >> On 02/24/2016 07:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > > >>> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: >> >> > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> > On 02/23/2016 06:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:59:44PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> > >>From: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >> >> > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>> > >>We are making experiments with different autoballooning strategies >> >> > > >>>>> > >>based on the guest behavior. Thus we need to experiment with different >> >> > > >>>>> > >>guest statistics. For now every counter change requires QEMU recompilation >> >> > > >>>>> > >>and dances with Libvirt. >> >> > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>> > >>This patch introduces transport for unrecognized counters in virtio-balloon. >> >> > > >>>>> > >>This transport can be used for measuring benefits from using new >> >> > > >>>>> > >>balloon counters, before submitting any patches. Current alternative >> >> > > >>>>> > >>is 'guest-exec' transport which isn't made for such delicate matters >> >> > > >>>>> > >>and can influence test results. >> >> > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>> > >>Originally all counters with tag >= VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR were ignored. >> >> > > >>>>> > >>Instead of this we keep first (VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32) counters from the >> >> > > >>>>> > >>queue and pass unrecognized ones with the following names: 'x-stat-XXXX', >> >> > > >>>>> > >>where XXXX is a tag number in hex. Defined counters are reported with their >> >> > > >>>>> > >>regular names. >> >> > > >>>>> > >> >> >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Igor Redko <redkoi@virtuozzo.com> >> >> > > >>>>> > >>Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org> >> >> > > >>>>> > >>CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> >> > > >>>>> > >This seems to open the ABI to abuse. >> >> > > >>>>> > >Seems like a reasonable way to experiment though. >> >> > > >>>>> > >How about adding this within #if 0 statements? >> >> > > >>>>> > >You can uncomment them for debugging ... >> >> > > >>>>> > I'd prefer to have this enabled. >> >> > > >> >> > > Yes, conditional compilation should be used sparingly. I don't have an >> >> > > opinion on whether using it here is appropriate. >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>> > Why do you think that it opens "abuse" way? >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> Because people will use this to hack drivers and management tools >> >> > > >>>>> bypassing qemu. >> >> > > >> >> > > Easy to avoid: shuffle the N in x-stat-N around from time to time, to >> >> > > reinforce the lesson that you must not rely on their presence or >> >> > > semantics. I doubt it'll be necessary beyond the renumbering that >> >> > > happens naturally when we add supported counters, or the reshuffling >> >> > > that happens when somebody messes with the unsupported counters. >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>> I'm curious why you think it's a problem? Even the existing stats are >> >> > > >>>> simply propagated to the management level by qemu with no processing >> >> > > >>>> other than assigning text labels. The proposed naming scheme for >> >> > > >>>> unrecognized counters includes "x-" prefix which explicitly marks them >> >> > > >>>> as unstable so people using them take their risk. >> >> > > >>>> >> >> > > >>>> One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >> >> > > >>>> graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >> >> > > >>>> can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. >> >> > > >>> Then management does start relying on the x- prefixed things, >> >> > > >>> and once it's used to that it's a slippery slope. >> >> > > >> Any management tool that relies on an x- prefix name is broken. >> >> > > >> >> > > Or at least assumes the full risk of breaking without notice whenever >> >> > > QEMU changes. Abbreviating that to just "broken" seems fair enough :) >> >> > > >> >> > > >> We've >> >> > > >> explicitly documented that the x- prefix is unstable and liable to go >> >> > > >> away with a future release. Any management app that wants to use a >> >> > > >> feature beginning with x- should FIRST push hard to get the x- removed >> >> > > >> and stabilize the interface (and libvirt, at least, does just that). >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > this was exactly an original idea. Names started with 'x-' are >> >> > > > _officially_ unstable and for debug purpose. That is why I'd >> >> > > > prefer if v2 of the patchset will be taken. >> >> > > >> >> > > Looks like fair use of x- to me. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Well I already heard: >> >> > >> >> > One of the benefits is forward compatibility, so that counters that have >> >> > graduated into supported ones and have got their own number and name, >> >> > can be made to work with qemu that doesn't yet recognize them. >> >> > >> >> > in this thread, which seems to mean exactly that people start planning to abuse it >> >> > even before it's merged. >> >> >> >> That quote (from yours truly) states the opposite. >> >> >> >> The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, >> >> with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common >> >> "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, >> >> right?). >> > >> > For most devices it's the virtio spec. >> > >> >> Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the >> >> guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches >> >> up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", >> >> as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. >> >> >> >> So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged >> >> into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance >> >> burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I >> >> sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management >> >> software anyway. >> >> >> >> Roman. >> > >> > Basically if you do this hack QEMU must not reuse the x-stat-NEW_NUMBER >> > ever, otherwise management handling it will intepret it >> > as legacy QEMU and will break. >> >> No, QEMU should aggressively reuse the number part. Heck, it's free to >> randomly mess with it without notice. Makes the x-stat-N effectively >> useless for anything but experimenting. Which is exactly the point of >> naming them x-. > > I must be missing something... QEMU has no business with the number at > all unless it recognizes it; in that case it only replaces the dumb > x-stat-N label with the one it knows. How can it "randomly mess with > it"? > > Let's get this straight: the only thing QEMU does with balloon stats is > marshalling them into json. (For that matter, libvirt only unmarshalls > them back into an array of (int tag, long value) pairs so is similar.) > Basically QEMU only plays the role of transport for memory stats between > the guest driver and the management layer; I'm not even sure why it has > to know what the individual fields mean. What this patch proposes is > essentially to make QEMU not stand in the way of the data it transports; > it's only the endpoints' responsibility to agree on the interpretation > of the contents. If you want to propose a stable interface, don't use the x- prefix. That's for unstable stuff. x- like experimental.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:30:21PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > >> >> The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, > >> >> with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common > >> >> "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, > >> >> right?). > >> > > >> > For most devices it's the virtio spec. > >> > > >> >> Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the > >> >> guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches > >> >> up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", > >> >> as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. > >> >> > >> >> So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged > >> >> into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance > >> >> burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I > >> >> sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management > >> >> software anyway. > >> >> > >> >> Roman. > >> > > >> > Basically if you do this hack QEMU must not reuse the x-stat-NEW_NUMBER > >> > ever, otherwise management handling it will intepret it > >> > as legacy QEMU and will break. > >> > >> No, QEMU should aggressively reuse the number part. Heck, it's free to > >> randomly mess with it without notice. Makes the x-stat-N effectively > >> useless for anything but experimenting. Which is exactly the point of > >> naming them x-. > > > > I must be missing something... QEMU has no business with the number at > > all unless it recognizes it; in that case it only replaces the dumb > > x-stat-N label with the one it knows. How can it "randomly mess with > > it"? > > > > Let's get this straight: the only thing QEMU does with balloon stats is > > marshalling them into json. (For that matter, libvirt only unmarshalls > > them back into an array of (int tag, long value) pairs so is similar.) > > Basically QEMU only plays the role of transport for memory stats between > > the guest driver and the management layer; I'm not even sure why it has > > to know what the individual fields mean. What this patch proposes is > > essentially to make QEMU not stand in the way of the data it transports; > > it's only the endpoints' responsibility to agree on the interpretation > > of the contents. > > If you want to propose a stable interface, don't use the x- prefix. > That's for unstable stuff. x- like experimental. We wanted to remain compatible with the existing query-balloon, which was already designed with named fields. Do you think we'd better introduce instead a new monitor command that would make QEMU just consistently marshall whatever the guest balloon sent without interpreting, e.g. query-balloon-raw? Or just drop x- and declare that all new fields in balloon stats will have stat-N names when marshalled by QEMU? Thanks, Roman.
Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:30:21PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: >> >> >> The whole point is that there are several participants in the process, >> >> >> with independent release cycles and policies, but with a common >> >> >> "registry" of supported stats (with the master copy being in the kernel, >> >> >> right?). >> >> > >> >> > For most devices it's the virtio spec. >> >> > >> >> >> Once a counter is accepted there, you can start shipping the >> >> >> guest driver providing it, and you don't have to wait until qemu catches >> >> >> up: your management level can read "x-stat-NEW_NUMBER" *or* "new_name", >> >> >> as both NEW_NUMBER and new_name are now allocated for that new counter. >> >> >> >> >> >> So yes, people are planning to use it, in particluar, before it's merged >> >> >> into qemu proper, but I don't see how that creates any extra maintenance >> >> >> burden on qemu side. Anybody using x- is on their own; the scheme I >> >> >> sketched seems reasonably safe but is the headache of that management >> >> >> software anyway. >> >> >> >> >> >> Roman. >> >> > >> >> > Basically if you do this hack QEMU must not reuse the x-stat-NEW_NUMBER >> >> > ever, otherwise management handling it will intepret it >> >> > as legacy QEMU and will break. >> >> >> >> No, QEMU should aggressively reuse the number part. Heck, it's free to >> >> randomly mess with it without notice. Makes the x-stat-N effectively >> >> useless for anything but experimenting. Which is exactly the point of >> >> naming them x-. >> > >> > I must be missing something... QEMU has no business with the number at >> > all unless it recognizes it; in that case it only replaces the dumb >> > x-stat-N label with the one it knows. How can it "randomly mess with >> > it"? >> > >> > Let's get this straight: the only thing QEMU does with balloon stats is >> > marshalling them into json. (For that matter, libvirt only unmarshalls >> > them back into an array of (int tag, long value) pairs so is similar.) >> > Basically QEMU only plays the role of transport for memory stats between >> > the guest driver and the management layer; I'm not even sure why it has >> > to know what the individual fields mean. What this patch proposes is >> > essentially to make QEMU not stand in the way of the data it transports; >> > it's only the endpoints' responsibility to agree on the interpretation >> > of the contents. >> >> If you want to propose a stable interface, don't use the x- prefix. >> That's for unstable stuff. x- like experimental. > > We wanted to remain compatible with the existing query-balloon, which > was already designed with named fields. > > Do you think we'd better introduce instead a new monitor command that > would make QEMU just consistently marshall whatever the guest balloon > sent without interpreting, e.g. query-balloon-raw? Or just drop x- and > declare that all new fields in balloon stats will have stat-N names when > marshalled by QEMU? Now I'm confused. According to virtio-balloon-stats.txt, they're exposed as virtio-balloon properties in QOM. I don't understand how these are related to query-balloon, nor what a new monitor command query-balloon-raw would be good for. You seem to propose adding stats unknown to QEMU with numeric names. If there's an authority mapping numbers to meaning, the numbers so mapped would be suitable as stable interface. However, for the numbers QEMU knows to be mapped, it surely knows names, too, so limiting the thing to such numbers would be pointless. The only way you can make numbers QEMU doesn't know a stable interface is declaring the interface a mere transport between guest and management application. That's a whole different can of worms. I have no opinion whether opening it here is a good idea.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:10:09PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com> writes: > Now I'm confused. According to virtio-balloon-stats.txt, they're > exposed as virtio-balloon properties in QOM. I don't understand how > these are related to query-balloon, nor what a new monitor command > query-balloon-raw would be good for. Oops, sorry, you're right, I mixed it all up: query-balloon only reports how big the balloon is currently inflated, while the stats are indeed exposed as object properties. So query-balloon-raw makes no sense. > You seem to propose adding stats unknown to QEMU with numeric names. If > there's an authority mapping numbers to meaning, the numbers so mapped > would be suitable as stable interface. However, for the numbers QEMU > knows to be mapped, it surely knows names, too, so limiting the thing to > such numbers would be pointless. > > The only way you can make numbers QEMU doesn't know a stable interface > is declaring the interface a mere transport between guest and management > application. But that's what it currently is. Roman.
diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c index a382f43..1740293 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static const char *balloon_stat_names[] = { */ static inline void reset_stats(VirtIOBalloon *dev) { - int i; - for (i = 0; i < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR; dev->stats[i++] = -1); + dev->stats_cnt = 0; } static bool balloon_stats_supported(const VirtIOBalloon *s) @@ -133,12 +132,20 @@ static void balloon_stats_get_all(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name, if (err) { goto out_end; } - for (i = 0; i < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR; i++) { - visit_type_uint64(v, balloon_stat_names[i], &s->stats[i], &err); + for (i = 0; i < s->stats_cnt; i++) { + if (s->stats[i].tag < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR) { + visit_type_uint64(v, balloon_stat_names[s->stats[i].tag], + &s->stats[i].val, &err); + } else { + gchar *str = g_strdup_printf("x-stat-%04x", s->stats[i].tag); + visit_type_uint64(v, str, &s->stats[i].val, &err); + g_free(str); + } if (err) { break; } } + error_propagate(errp, err); err = NULL; visit_end_struct(v, &err); @@ -273,10 +280,21 @@ static void virtio_balloon_receive_stats(VirtIODevice *vdev, VirtQueue *vq) == sizeof(stat)) { uint16_t tag = virtio_tswap16(vdev, stat.tag); uint64_t val = virtio_tswap64(vdev, stat.val); + int i; offset += sizeof(stat); - if (tag < VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR) - s->stats[tag] = val; + for (i = 0; i < s->stats_cnt; i++) { + if (s->stats[i].tag == tag) { + break; + } + } + if (i < ARRAY_SIZE(s->stats)) { + s->stats[i].tag = tag; + s->stats[i].val = val; + if (s->stats_cnt <= i) { + s->stats_cnt = i + 1; + } + } } s->stats_vq_offset = offset; diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h index 35f62ac..5c8730e 100644 --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.h @@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ typedef struct VirtIOBalloon { VirtQueue *ivq, *dvq, *svq; uint32_t num_pages; uint32_t actual; - uint64_t stats[VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR]; + VirtIOBalloonStatModern stats[VIRTIO_BALLOON_S_NR + 32]; + uint16_t stats_cnt; VirtQueueElement *stats_vq_elem; size_t stats_vq_offset; QEMUTimer *stats_timer;