[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv3 2/8] qemu: bulk stats: implement CPU stats group



On 09/10/14 15:46, Francesco Romani wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Wang Rui" <moon wangrui huawei com>
>> To: "Francesco Romani" <fromani redhat com>
>> Cc: libvir-list redhat com, pkrempa redhat com
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:56:47 AM
>> Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv3 2/8] qemu: bulk stats: implement CPU stats group
>>
>> On 2014/9/8 21:05, Francesco Romani wrote:
>>> This patch implements the VIR_DOMAIN_STATS_CPU_TOTAL
>>> group of statistics.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Francesco Romani <fromani redhat com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in |  1 +
>>>  src/libvirt.c                |  9 ++++++++
>>>  src/qemu/qemu_driver.c       | 51
>>>  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>>> index 2950a4b..cfc5941 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>>> @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@
>>>  #include "storage/storage_driver.h"
>>>  #include "virhostdev.h"
>>>  #include "domain_capabilities.h"
>>> +#include "vircgroup.h"
>>
>> Hi, Francesco.
>> I see the file including relationship. 'qemu_driver.c' includes
>> 'qemu_cgroup.h' which
>> includes 'vircgroup.h'. There are other virCgroupGet* functions called in
>> qemu_driver.c
>> now. So I think here "include vircgroup.h" is not necessary.
> 
> Thanks for the research, I'll remove

I don't think that's necessary. We guard includes by #ifdef-ing it and
also if something changes in the future we won't need to change the
includes. If you use the functions from vircgroup.h, then just include it.

> 
>>>  #define VIR_FROM_THIS VIR_FROM_QEMU
>>>  
>>> @@ -17338,6 +17339,55 @@ qemuDomainGetStatsState(virConnectPtr conn
>>> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  
>>> +static int
>>> +qemuDomainGetStatsCpu(virConnectPtr conn ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>>> +                      virDomainObjPtr dom,
>>> +                      virDomainStatsRecordPtr record,
>>> +                      int *maxparams,
>>> +                      unsigned int privflags ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>> +{
>>> +    qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv = dom->privateData;
>>> +    unsigned long long cpu_time = 0;
>>> +    unsigned long long user_time = 0;
>>> +    unsigned long long sys_time = 0;
>>> +    int ncpus = 0;
>>> +    int err;
>>> +
>>> +    ncpus = nodeGetCPUCount();
>>> +    if (ncpus > 0 &&
>>> +        virTypedParamsAddUInt(&record->params,
>>> +                              &record->nparams,
>>> +                              maxparams,
>>> +                              "cpu.count",
>>> +                              (unsigned int)ncpus) < 0)
>>> +        return -1;
>>> +
>>> +    err = virCgroupGetCpuacctUsage(priv->cgroup, &cpu_time);
>>> +    if (!err && virTypedParamsAddULLong(&record->params,
>>> +                                        &record->nparams,
>>> +                                        maxparams,
>>> +                                        "cpu.time",
>>> +                                        cpu_time) < 0)
>>> +        return -1;
>>> +    err = virCgroupGetCpuacctStat(priv->cgroup, &user_time, &sys_time);
>>> +    if (!err && virTypedParamsAddULLong(&record->params,
>>> +                                        &record->nparams,
>>> +                                        maxparams,
>>> +                                        "cpu.user",
>>> +                                        user_time) < 0)
>>> +        return -1;
>>> +    if (!err && virTypedParamsAddULLong(&record->params,
>>> +                                        &record->nparams,
>>> +                                        maxparams,
>>> +                                        "cpu.system",
>>> +                                        sys_time) < 0)
>>> +        return -1;
>>
>> 1. If any of the 'err's is not zero, the function may returns 0 as success.
>>    Is this the expected return? Or at least we can give a warning that we
>>    miss some parameters.
>> 2. I think it's better to report an error or warning log before return -1.
> 
> The idea here (well, at least my idea :) ) is to gather as much as data as possible,
> and to silently skip failures here. The lack of expected output is a good enough
> indicator that a domain is unresponsive.
> -1 is reported for really unrecoverable error, like memory (re)allocation failure.

That makes sense. I'd implement it the same way.

> 
> Otherwise, how could the client code be meaningfully informed that some group
> failed, maybe partially? It is possible that different groups fail for different
> domains: how could we convey this information?

I think that skipping information snippets that can't be gathered makes
sense. (I hope that I've documented it that way) And if we'd like to
make failure mandatory we still can add a flag. I think that this
shouldn't be necessary though as long as the caller takes that into account.

> 
> I have no problems to go this route if there is consensus this is the preferred
> way to go, but then we'll need to discuss how to convey a meaningful error convention.
> 
> Bests,
> 

Peter

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]