19 Feb 13:17 2010
Re: [tip:x86/mce] x86, mce: Make xeon75xx memory driver dependent on PCI
Andi Kleen <andi <at> firstfloor.org>
2010-02-19 12:17:34 GMT
2010-02-19 12:17:34 GMT
Hi Thomas, I would appreciate if you could read the whole email and ideally the references too before replying. I apologize for the length, but this is a complicated topic. > and integrate it > into perf as the suitable event logging mechanism. The main reason I didn't react to that proposal is I don't see a clear path to make perf a good error mechanism. I know there's a tendency that if you're working on something that you think is cool, to try to force everything else you're seeing into that model too (I occasionally have such tendencies too But if you take a step back and look at the requirements with a sceptical eye that's not always the best thing to do. Requirements for error handling are very different from performance monitoring. Let me walk you through some of these differences: USER TOOLS: The current perf user tools are not suitable for errors: they are not "always on running in the background" like you need for errors. They are aimed at a interactive user model which is fine for performance monitoring (well at least some forms of performance monitoring), but not for errors. Yes they could be probably reworked for a "always on" daemon model, but the result would be a) completely different than what you have today in terms of interface (it would be a lot more like you have with oprofile, and as I understand one of the main motivations for perf was wide spread dislike of the oprofile daemon model) b) likely worse for performance monitoring (unless you fork them into two) The requirements are simply very different. c) a lot like what mcelog is today. mcelog today is a always on error daemon optimized for error handling, nothing else. There's no associated error oriented infrastructure like triggers etc. in perf Yes that could be all implemented, but (b) and (c) above apply. So yes it could be probably done, but I suspect the result would not make you happy for performance monitoring. EVENT INTERFACE I: The perf interface is aimed at a specific way of filtering events, which is not the right interface for errors, because you need usually all errors in most (not all) cases. Basically in performance monitoring typically most events are off and you sometimes turn them on, in error handling it's exactly the other way around. Also errors tend to have different behavior from performance counters, for example a model for a error on a object is more the "leaky bucket", which is not a good fit for performance. (I have more details on this in http://halobates.de/plumbers-error.pdf) OVERHEAD: The perf subsystem has relatively high overhead today (in terms of memory size and code size overhead) and is IMHO not suitable to be always active because of this. Errors are very fundamental and error reporting mechanisms have to be always active, so it's extremely important that they have very low overhead by default. That's not what perf's model is: it trades memory size and code size for more performance. That is fine for optional monitoring (if you can afford it), but not the right model for an fundamental "always on" mechanism. For "always on" infrastructure it's better to be slim. That said I suspect perf events could be likely put on a serious diet, but it's unclear if the result would work as well as it does today for performance monitoring. You would likely lose some features optimized for it at least. EVENT INTERFACE II: Partly that's because it has a lot of functionality that are not needed for errors anyways. For example error just needs some very simple error buffers that can be straight forwardly implemented using kfifos (I did that already in fact). That's just a few lines, all the functionality in kernel/perf/* is not really needed. There's no good way to throttle events per source, like it's needed for errors. EVENT INTERFACE III: Then one of the current issues with mcelog is that it's not straight forward to add variable length record types with typing etc. This isn't too big a problem for MCEs (although the DIMM error reporting would have been slightly nicer with it) but for some other types of errors it's a bigger issue. Now the funny thing is (and I keep waiting for Ingo to figure that out : the perf record format has exactly the same problem as mcelog in this regard. It's a untyped binary format where it's only possible to add something at the end, not a fully extensible typed format with sub records etc. A better match would be either netlink with its sub record (although for various reasons other I don't think it's the best model either) or the ASCII based udev sysfs interfaces. In fact that is what Ingo asked for some time ago (before he moved to the "everything must be perf" model). He wanted an ASCII interface (so more like the udev model). I'm not completely happy with that either, but it's probably still one of the better models and could be made to work. It's definitely not perf though. > year. You are refusing to work with other people on a well designed First I work with a lot of people on error handling, even if you're not always in Cc. We would need to agree to disagree on EDAC being a "well designed solution) IMHO it has a lot of problems (not just in my opinion if you read some of the mails e.g. from Borislav he's stating the same) and it's definitely not the general frame work you're asking for In fact in many ways EDAC far more specialized to some specific subset of errors than mcelog. A generic error frame work (that would be neither EDAC nor perf nor mcelog on the interface level) could be probably done and I have some ideas on how to do that properly (e.g. see the link below), but it's not a short term project. It needs a lot of design work to be done properly and also would likely need to evolve for some time. It would also need a suitable user level infrastructure, which is actually a larger project than the kernel interfaces. The patch above was simply intended to solve a specific problem on a specific chip. I don't claim the interface is the best I ever did (definitely not), but at least it solves an existing problem in a relatively straight forward way and I claim there's no clear better solution with today's infrastructure. How are you suggesting to solve the DIMM error reporting in the short term (let's say 2.6.34/35 time frame, without major redesigns) ? -Andi References: - Thoughts on future error handling model: http://halobates.de/plumbers-error.pdf - mcelog kernel and userland design today: http://halobates.de/mce-lc09-2.pdf -- -- ak <at> linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.