Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, mce: Add persistent MCE event

[Ingo Molnar]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:15:01AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 08:37:31AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > I was mainly thinking of reducing this:
> > > > 
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c |   53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > to almost nothing. There doesn't seem to be much MCE specific in 
> > > > that code, right?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, this could be generalized even more, AFAICT.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Btw, the more important question is are we going to need 
> > > > > persistent events that much so that a generic approach is 
> > > > > warranted? I guess maybe the black box events recording deal 
> > > > > would be another user..
> > > > 
> > > > So, here's the big picture as I see it:
> > > > 
> > > > I think tracing could use persistent events: mark all the events 
> > > > we want to trace as persistent from bootup, and recover the 
> > > > bootup trace after the system has been booted up.
> > > 
> > > Right, but (more nasty questions):
> > > 
> > > Why would I do this, am I tracing the boot process? [...]
> > 
> > Correct, in essence the MCE persistent event is partially about 
> > that: we are starting to collect events well before there's any 
> > user-space available.
> > 
> > > [...] If so, then I need another syntax which enables those 
> > > events from the kernel command line which gets parsed the 
> > > moment ftrace and ring buffer get initialized.
> > 
> > Correct. Something really simple like:
> > 
> >   boot_trace=<event1>,<event2>...
> > 
> > ... which could be all implicit within MCE too. (So I'm not 
> > suggesting some boot command trigger to provide the MCE case - 
> > but for more general boot tracing it would be the right 
> > solution.)
> > 
> > > IOW, I'd need userspace for perf otherwise but I don't have 
> > > that before booting...
> > 
> > Correct. In the case of MCE there's no "userspace" really needed 
> > - we just want to trace early enough. This model carries over to 
> > later as well: there's no *specific* process we want to attach 
> > the trace buffer to - we just want a persistent trace buffer 
> > that essentially never loses MCE events.
> > 
> > > Then, after having booted, do I stop the trace? If no, then I 
> > > can see the persistency in there so are you saying we want a 
> > > low overhead, low ressource utilization machinery which runs 
> > > all the time and traces the system? What are possible real 
> > > life use cases for that? Scheduler analysis probably, 
> > > long-term tracing of some stuff people are interested in how 
> > > it behaves over long periods of time... MCE is one use case, 
> > > definitely...
> > 
> > Boot tracing is a very real usecase, people use it to reduce 
> > boot times. Today printk timestamps are used as a substitute. 
> > (There's also a boot tracer plugin within ftrace, see the 
> > bootup_tracer.)
> > 
> > > > But other, runtime models of tracing could use it as well: 
> > > > basically the main difference that ftrace has to perf based 
> > > > tracing today is a system-wide persistent buffer with no 
> > > > particular owning process. (The rest is mostly UI and 
> > > > analysis features and scope of tracing differences, and of 
> > > > course a lot more love and detail went into ftrace so far.)
> > > > 
> > > > So MCE will in the end be just a minor user of such a 
> > > > facility - I think you should aim for enabling *any* set of 
> > > > events to have persistent recording properties, and add the 
> > > > APIs to recover that information sanely. It should also be 
> > > > possible for them to record into a shared mmap page in 
> > > > essence - instead of having per event persistent buffers.
> > > 
> > > Sounds like ftrace. But we have that already, we only need to 
> > > get to using it perf-side, no...? [...]
> > 
> > What we want is to extend the perf ring-buffer to be persistent 
> > *as well*. It's an evidently useful model of collecting events.
> > 
> > All the remaining perf tooling can be used after that point - if 
> > it's a bog-standard perf ring-buffer then it can be saved into a 
> > perf.data and can be analyzed in a rich fashion, etc.
> > 
> > Think about it: for example we could do not just boot tracing 
> > but also boot *profiling*, by using the PMU to sample into a 
> > persistent buffer which after bootup can be put into a perf.data 
> > and 'perf report' will do the right thing, etc...
> > 
> > Does it overlap with ftrace? Perf overlapped with ftrace from 
> > day one on and it's starting to become a maintenance problem: we 
> > want to remove that overlap not by keeping two separate entities 
> > (both of which suck and rule in their own ways) but having a 
> > unified facility.
> 
> Leaving all of the above for reference.
> 
> So, I spent some more nights sleeping on it :-)
> 
> Here's what I dreamt of:
> 
> * The last thing perf_event_init() does is init the persistent, per-cpu
> buffers.
> 
> * there's no need for changing TRACE_EVENT: "boot_trace" parameter
> parsing code enables those events the moment perf is initialized. We're
> doing this anyway because we're enabling the trace_mce_record TP.
> 
> It sounds pretty simple to me but the devil is in the details,
> especially making the persistent buffers, task-agnostic and generic
> enough.
> 
> Ingo, Peter, thoughts?

Sounds good to me in principle - I guess if you send something 
that is tested, works, and also enables boot tracing we can see 
the details?

Thanks,

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