lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectstatistics infrastructure (in -mm tree) review
First cut at reviewing this code.

Initial impression is, "damm, that's a complex interface". I'd really
like to see some other, real-world usages of this. Like perhaps the
io-schedular statistics? Some other /proc stats that have nothing to do
with processes?

And what does this mean for relayfs? Those developers tuned that code
to the nth degree to get speed and other goodness, and here you go just
ignoring that stuff and add yet another way to get stats out of the
kernel. Why should I use this instead of my own code with relayfs?

And is the need for the in-kernel parser really necessary? I know it
makes the userspace tools simpler (cat and echo), but should we be
telling the kernel how to filter and adjust the data? Shouldn't we just
dump it all to userspace and use tools there to manipulate it?

Oh, and use C99 structure initializers for when creating the statisic
structures in the example code (and real code), it makes it much easier
to understand, and future proof when the api changes.

Code comments now:


> diff -puN arch/s390/Kconfig~statistics-infrastructure arch/s390/Kconfig
> --- devel/arch/s390/Kconfig~statistics-infrastructure 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> +++ devel-akpm/arch/s390/Kconfig 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -490,8 +490,14 @@ source "drivers/net/Kconfig"
>
> source "fs/Kconfig"
>
> +menu "Instrumentation Support"
> +
> source "arch/s390/oprofile/Kconfig"
>
> +source "lib/Kconfig.statistic"
> +
> +endmenu
> +
> source "arch/s390/Kconfig.debug"
>
> source "security/Kconfig"
> diff -puN arch/s390/oprofile/Kconfig~statistics-infrastructure arch/s390/oprofile/Kconfig
> --- devel/arch/s390/oprofile/Kconfig~statistics-infrastructure 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> +++ devel-akpm/arch/s390/oprofile/Kconfig 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -1,6 +1,3 @@
> -
> -menu "Profiling support"
> -
> config PROFILING
> bool "Profiling support"
> help
> @@ -18,5 +15,3 @@ config OPROFILE
>
> If unsure, say N.
>
> -endmenu
> -

These two patches should probably go somewhere else, they don't have
much to do with this one. (well, adding Kconfig.statistic" does, but
the other wording doesn't.)

> diff -puN /dev/null include/linux/statistic.h
> --- /dev/null 2006-06-03 22:34:36.282200750 -0700
> +++ devel-akpm/include/linux/statistic.h 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
> +/*
> + * include/linux/statistic.h
> + *
> + * Statistics facility
> + *
> + * (C) Copyright IBM Corp. 2005, 2006
> + *
> + * Author(s): Martin Peschke <mpeschke@de.ibm.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> + * any later version.

Are you sure "any later version"?

> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> + * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Two not-needed paragraphs.

> +#ifndef STATISTIC_H
> +#define STATISTIC_H
> +
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> +
> +#define STATISTIC_ROOT_DIR "statistics"
> +
> +#define STATISTIC_FILENAME_DATA "data"
> +#define STATISTIC_FILENAME_DEF "definition"
> +
> +#define STATISTIC_NEED_BARRIER 1

Meta-comment about this file, does most of the stuff in this file,
really belong here? At first glance, this should only hold the public
interface to the statistic code, not everything else needed by the
internal workings of that code. It looks like it could be made a lot
smaller.

> +enum statistic_state {
> + STATISTIC_STATE_INVALID,
> + STATISTIC_STATE_UNCONFIGURED,
> + STATISTIC_STATE_RELEASED,
> + STATISTIC_STATE_OFF,
> + STATISTIC_STATE_ON
> +};
> +
> +enum statistic_type {
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_COUNTER_INC,
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_COUNTER_PROD,
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_UTIL,
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_HISTOGRAM_LIN,
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_HISTOGRAM_LOG2,
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_SPARSE,
> + STATISTIC_TYPE_NONE
> +};

Make these bit-safe so sparse can catch mistakes?

> +#define STATISTIC_FLAGS_NOINCR 0x01

What's this for?

> +/**
> + * struct statistic_info - description of a class of statistics
> + * @name: pointer to name name string
> + * @x_unit: pointer to string describing unit of X of (X, Y) data pair
> + * @y_unit: pointer to string describing unit of Y of (X, Y) data pair
> + * @flags: only flag so far (distinction of incremental and other statistic)
> + * @defaults: pointer to string describing defaults setting for attributes
> + *
> + * Exploiters must setup an array of struct statistic_info for a
> + * corresponding array of struct statistic, which are then pointed to
> + * by struct statistic_interface.
> + *
> + * Struct statistic_info and all members and addressed strings must stay for
> + * the lifetime of corresponding statistics created with statistic_create().
> + *
> + * Except for the name string, all other members may be left blank.
> + * It would be nice of exploiters to fill it out completely, though.
> + */
> +struct statistic_info {
> +/* public: */
> + char *name;
> + char *x_unit;
> + char *y_unit;
> + int flags;
> + char *defaults;
> +};

The whole "public:" and "private:" thing in these structures is not
needed. Just document it in the kernel-doc comments and you should be
fine. This isn't C++ :)

> +struct sgrb_seg {
> + struct list_head list;
> + char *address;
> + int offset;
> + int size;
> +};
> +
> +struct statistic_file_private {
> + struct list_head read_seg_lh;
> + struct list_head write_seg_lh;
> + size_t write_seg_total_size;
> +};
> +
> +struct statistic_merge_private {
> + struct statistic *stat;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + void *dst;
> +};

I'm guessing these three structures aren't needed here. Otherwise,
please document them.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_STATISTICS

Why ifdef now, so late?

> +extern int statistic_create(struct statistic_interface *, const char *);
> +extern int statistic_remove(struct statistic_interface *);
> +
> +/**
> + * statistic_add - update statistic with incremental data in (X, Y) pair
> + * @stat: struct statistic array
> + * @i: index of statistic to be updated
> + * @value: X
> + * @incr: Y
> + *
> + * The actual processing of the (X, Y) data pair is determined by the current
> + * the definition applied to the statistic. See Documentation/statistics.txt.
> + *
> + * This variant takes care of protecting per-cpu data. It is preferred whenever
> + * exploiters don't update several statistics of the same entity in one go.
> + */
> +static inline void statistic_add(struct statistic *stat, int i,
> + s64 value, u64 incr)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + if (stat[i].state == STATISTIC_STATE_ON)
> + stat[i].add(&stat[i], smp_processor_id(), value, incr);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

These are all inline, which I guess is acceptable. But see the current
inline-or-not comments on lkml which may make you rethink this.

> +/**
> + * statistic_add_nolock - update statistic with incremental data in (X, Y) pair
> + * @stat: struct statistic array
> + * @i: index of statistic to be updated
> + * @value: X
> + * @incr: Y
> + *
> + * The actual processing of the (X, Y) data pair is determined by the current
> + * definition applied to the statistic. See Documentation/statistics.txt.
> + *
> + * This variant leaves protecting per-cpu data to exploiters. It is preferred
> + * whenever exploiters update several statistics of the same entity in one go.
> + */
> +static inline void statistic_add_nolock(struct statistic *stat, int i,
> + s64 value, u64 incr)
> +{
> + if (stat[i].state == STATISTIC_STATE_ON)
> + stat[i].add(&stat[i], smp_processor_id(), value, incr);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * statistic_inc - update statistic with incremental data in (X, 1) pair
> + * @stat: struct statistic array
> + * @i: index of statistic to be updated
> + * @value: X
> + *
> + * The actual processing of the (X, Y) data pair is determined by the current
> + * definition applied to the statistic. See Documentation/statistics.txt.
> + *
> + * This variant takes care of protecting per-cpu data. It is preferred whenever
> + * exploiters don't update several statistics of the same entity in one go.
> + */
> +static inline void statistic_inc(struct statistic *stat, int i, s64 value)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + if (stat[i].state == STATISTIC_STATE_ON)
> + stat[i].add(&stat[i], smp_processor_id(), value, 1);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

Shouldn't this just call statistic_add() with a incr of 1?

> +
> +/**
> + * statistic_inc_nolock - update statistic with incremental data in (X, 1) pair
> + * @stat: struct statistic array
> + * @i: index of statistic to be updated
> + * @value: X
> + *
> + * The actual processing of the (X, Y) data pair is determined by the current
> + * definition applied to the statistic. See Documentation/statistics.txt.
> + *
> + * This variant leaves protecting per-cpu data to exploiters. It is preferred
> + * whenever exploiters update several statistics of the same entity in one go.
> + */
> +static inline void statistic_inc_nolock(struct statistic *stat, int i,
> + s64 value)
> +{
> + if (stat[i].state == STATISTIC_STATE_ON)
> + stat[i].add(&stat[i], smp_processor_id(), value, 1);
> +}

Shouldn't this just call statistic_add_nolock with a incr of 1?

> diff -puN /dev/null lib/Kconfig.statistic
> --- /dev/null 2006-06-03 22:34:36.282200750 -0700
> +++ devel-akpm/lib/Kconfig.statistic 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +config STATISTICS
> + bool "Statistics infrastructure"
> + depends on DEBUG_FS
> + help
> + The statistics infrastructure provides a debug-fs based user interface

No "-" in debugfs :)

> + for statistics of kernel components, that is, usually device drivers.

Why mention drivers? Other things might use this (see original comments
at the start of the message.)

> --- /dev/null 2006-06-03 22:34:36.282200750 -0700
> +++ devel-akpm/lib/statistic.c 2006-06-09 15:22:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -0,0 +1,1459 @@
> +/*
> + * lib/statistic.c
> + * statistics facility
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2005, 2006
> + * IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH,
> + * IBM Corporation
> + *
> + * Author(s): Martin Peschke (mpeschke@de.ibm.com),
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> + * any later version.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> + * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Again with the verbose license :)


> +static void _statistic_barrier(void *unused)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline int statistic_stop(struct statistic *stat)
> +{
> + stat->stopped = sched_clock();
> + stat->state = STATISTIC_STATE_OFF;
> + /* ensures that all CPUs have ceased updating statistics */
> + smp_mb();
> + on_each_cpu(_statistic_barrier, NULL, 0, 1);
> + return 0;
> +}

Isn't there a way to use rcu for this instead? Just a suggestion, it
might be totally wrong...


> +
> +static int statistic_transition(struct statistic *stat,
> + struct statistic_info *info,
> + enum statistic_state requested_state)
> +{
> + int z = (requested_state < stat->state ? 1 : 0);
> + int retval = -EINVAL;

int retval = 0;

> +
> + while (stat->state != requested_state) {
> + switch (stat->state) {
> + case STATISTIC_STATE_INVALID:
> + retval = ( z ? -EINVAL : statistic_initialise(stat) );
> + break;
> + case STATISTIC_STATE_UNCONFIGURED:
> + retval = ( z ? statistic_uninitialise(stat)
> + : statistic_define(stat) );
> + break;
> + case STATISTIC_STATE_RELEASED:
> + retval = ( z ? statistic_initialise(stat)
> + : statistic_alloc(stat, info) );
> + break;
> + case STATISTIC_STATE_OFF:
> + retval = ( z ? statistic_free(stat, info)
> + : statistic_start(stat) );
> + break;
> + case STATISTIC_STATE_ON:
> + retval = ( z ? statistic_stop(stat) : -EINVAL );
> + break;
> + }
> + if (unlikely(retval))
> + return retval;

delete these two lines.

> + }
> + return 0;

return retval;

> +static match_table_t statistic_match_type = {
> + {1, "type=%s"},
> + {9, NULL}
> +};

named field initializers please.


> +static match_table_t statistic_match_common = {
> + {STATISTIC_STATE_UNCONFIGURED, "state=unconfigured"},
> + {STATISTIC_STATE_RELEASED, "state=released"},
> + {STATISTIC_STATE_OFF, "state=off"},
> + {STATISTIC_STATE_ON, "state=on"},
> + {1001, "name=%s"},
> + {1002, "data=reset"},
> + {1003, "defaults"},
> + {9999, NULL}
> +};

Same here.

And why do you have numbers and a mix of enums here? Shouldn't you
define the name=, data= and defaults too?

Also, just null terminate the list, is 9999 really needed?

> +static struct statistic_discipline statistic_discs[] = {
> + { /* STATISTIC_TYPE_COUNTER_INC */
> + NULL,
> + statistic_alloc_generic,
> + NULL,
> + statistic_reset_counter,
> + statistic_merge_counter,
> + statistic_fdata_counter,
> + NULL,
> + statistic_add_counter_inc,
> + statistic_set_counter_inc,
> + "counter_inc", sizeof(u64)
> + },

named initializers please. That will let you not have to specify the
NULL fields, making it much easier to read overall.

thanks,

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-14 01:52    [W:0.213 / U:4.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site