events req servicing v2, with background computation, mod

[lttv.git] / ltt / branches / poly / doc / developer / lttvwindow_events_delivery.txt

Linux Trace Toolkit

Mathieu Desnoyers 17-05-2004


This document explains how the lttvwindow API could process the event requests
of the viewers, merging event requests and hook lists to benefit from the fact
that process_traceset can call multiple hooks for the same event.

First, we will explain the detailed process of event delivery in the current
framework. We will then study its strengths and weaknesses.

In a second time, a framework where the events requests are dealt by the main
window with fine granularity will be described. We will then discussed the
advantages and inconvenients over the first framework.


1. (Actual) Boundaryless event reading

Actually, viewers request events in a time interval from the main window. They
also specify a (not so) maximum number of events to be delivered. In fact, the
number of events to read only gives a stop point, from where only events with
the same timestamp will be delivered.

Viewers register hooks themselves in the traceset context. When merging read
requests in the main window, all hooks registered by viewers will be called for
the union of all the read requests, because the main window has no control on
hook registration.

The main window calls process_traceset on its own for all the intervals
requested by all the viewers. It must not duplicate a read of the same time
interval : it could be very hard to filter by viewers. So, in order to achieve
this, time requests are sorted by start time, and process_traceset is called for
each time request. We keep the last event time between each read : if the start
time of the next read is lower than the time reached, we continue the reading
from the actual position.

We deal with specific number of events requests (infinite end time) by
garantying that, starting from the time start of the request, at least that
number of events will be read. As we can't do it efficiently without interacting
very closely with process_traceset, we always read the specified number of
events requested starting from the current position when we answer to a request
based on the number of events.

The viewers have to filter events delivered by traceset reading, because they
can be asked by another viewer for a totally (or partially) different time
interval.


Weaknesses

- process_middle does not guarantee the number of events read

First of all, a viewer that requests events to process_traceset has no garantee
that it will get exactly what it asked for. For example, a direct call to
traceset_middle for a specific number of events will delived _at least_ that
quantity of events, plus the ones that have the same timestamp that the last one
has.

- Border effects

Viewer's writers will have to deal with a lot of border effects caused by the
particularities of the reading. They will be required to select the information
they need from their input by filtering.

- Lack of encapsulation and difficulty of testing

The viewer's writer will have to take into account all the border effects caused
by the interaction with other modules. This means that event if a viewer works
well alone or with another viewer, it's possible that new bugs arises when a new
viewer comes around. So, even if a perfect testbench works well for a viewer, it
does not confirm that no new bug will arise when another viewer is loaded at the
same moment asking for different time intervals.


- Duplication of the work

Time based filters and counters of events will have to be implemented at the
viewer's side, which is a duplication of the functionnalities that would
normally be expected from the tracecontext API.

- Lack of control over the data input

As we expect module's writers to prefer to be as close as possible from the raw
datas, making them interact with a lower level library that gives them a data
input that they only control by further filtering of the input is not
appropriated. We should expect some reluctancy from them about using this API
because of this lack of control on the input.

- Speed cost

All hooks of all viewers will be called for all the time intervals. So, if we
have a detailed events list and a control flow view, asking both for different
time intervals, the detailed events list will have to filter all the events
delivered originally to the control flow view. This can be a case occuring quite
often.



Strengths

- Simple concatenation of time intervals at the main window level.

Having the opportunity of delivering more events than necessary to the viewers
means that we can concatenate time intervals and number of events requested
fairly easily, while being hard to determine if some specific cases will be
wrong, in depth testing being impossible.

- No duplication of the tracecontext API

Viewers deal directly with the tracecontext API for registering hooks, removing
a layer of encapsulation.





2. (Proposed) Strict boundaries events reading

The idea behind this method is to provide exactly the events requested by the
viewers to them, no more, no less.

It uses the new API for process traceset suggested in the document
process_traceset_strict_boundaries.txt.

It also means that the lttvwindow API will have to deal with viewer's hooks.
Those will not be allowed to add them directly in the context. They will give
them to the lttvwindow API, along with the time interval or the position and
number of events. The lttvwindow API will have to take care of adding and
removing hooks for the different time intervals requested. That means that hooks
insertion and removal will be done between each traceset processing based on
the time intervals and event positions related to each hook. We must therefore
provide a simple interface for hooks passing between the viewers and the main
window, make them easier to manage from the main window. A modification to the
LttvHooks type solves this problem.


Architecture

Added to the lttvwindow API :


void lttvwindow_events_request
( MainWindow                  *main_win,
  EventsRequest               *events_request);

void lttvwindow_events_request
( MainWindow    *main_win,
  EventsRequest  events_request);

void lttvwindow_events_request_remove_all
( MainWindow    *main_win,
  gpointer       viewer);


Internal functions :

- lttvwindow_process_pending_requests


Events Requests Removal

A new API function will be necessary to let viewers remove all event requests
they have made previously. By allowing this, no more out of bound requests will
be serviced : a viewer that sees its time interval changed before the first
servicing is completed can clear its previous events requests and make a new
one for the new interval needed, considering the finished chunks as completed
area.

It is also very useful for dealing with the viewer destruction case : the viewer
just has to remove its events requests from the main window before it gets
destroyed.


Permitted GTK Events Between Chunks

All GTK Events will be enabled between chunks. This is due to the fact that the
background processing and a high priority request are seen as the same case.
While a background processing is in progress, the whole graphical interface must
be enabled.

We needed to deal with the coherence of background processing and diverse GTK
events anyway. This algorithm provides a generalized way to deal with any type
of request and any GTK events.


Background Computation Request

The types of background computation that can be requested by a viewer : state
computation (main window scope) or viewer specific background computation.

A background computation request is asked via lttvwindow_events_request, with a
priority field set with a low priority.

If a lttvwindow_events_request_remove_all is done on the viewer pointer, it will
not affect the state computation as no viewer pointer will have been passed in
the initial request. This is the expected result. For the background processings
that call viewer's hooks, they will be removed.


A New "Redraw" Button

It will be used to redraw the viewers entirely. It is useful to restart the
servicing after a "stop" action.

A New "Continue" Button

It will tell the viewers to send requests for damaged areas. It is useful to
complete the servicing after a "stop" action.



Tab change

If a tab change occurs, we still want to do background processing.
Events requests must be stocked in a list located in the same scope than the
traceset context. Right now, this is tab scope. All functions called from the
request servicing function must _not_ use the current_tab concept, as it may
change. The idle function must the take a tab, and not the main window, as
parameter.

If a tab is removed, its associated idle events requests servicing function must
also be removed.

It now looks a lot more useful to give a Tab* to the viewer instead of a
MainWindow*, as all the information needed by the viewer is located at the tab
level. It will diminish the dependance upon the current tab concept.



Idle function (lttvwindow_process_pending_requests)

The idle function must return FALSE to be removed from the idle functions when
no more events requests are pending. Otherwise, it returns TRUE. It will service
requests until there is no more request left.




Implementation


- Type LttvHooks

see hook_prio.txt

The viewers will just have to pass hooks to the main window through this type,
using the hook.h interface to manipulate it. Then, the main window will add
them and remove them from the context to deliver exactly the events requested by
each viewer through process traceset.


- lttvwindow_events_request

It adds the an EventsRequest struct to the array of time requests
pending and registers a pending request for the next g_idle if none is
registered. The viewer can access this structure during the read as its
hook_data. Only the stop_flag can be changed by the viewer through the
event hooks.

typedef LttvEventsRequestPrio guint;

typedef struct _EventsRequest {
  gpointer                     viewer_data;
  gboolean                     servicing;       /* service in progress: TRUE */ 
  LttvEventsRequestPrio        prio;            /* Ev. Req. priority        */
  LttTime                      start_time;      /* Unset : { 0, 0 }         */
  LttvTracesetContextPosition *start_position;  /* Unset : num_traces = 0   */
  gboolean                     stop_flag;       /* Continue:TRUE Stop:FALSE */
  LttTime                      end_time;        /* Unset : { 0, 0 }         */
  guint                        num_events;      /* Unset : G_MAXUINT        */
  LttvTracesetContextPosition *end_position;    /* Unset : num_traces = 0   */
  LttvHooks                   *before_traceset; /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *before_trace;    /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *before_tracefile;/* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *event;           /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooksById               *event_by_id;     /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *after_tracefile; /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *after_trace;     /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *after_traceset;  /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *before_chunk;    /* Unset : NULL             */
  LttvHooks                   *after_chunk      /* Unset : NULL             */
} EventsRequest;



- lttvwindow_events_request_remove_all

It removes all the events requests from the pool that has their "viewer" field
maching the viewer pointer given in argument.

It calls the traceset/trace/tracefile end hooks for each request removed.


- lttvwindow_process_pending_requests

This internal function gets called by g_idle, taking care of the pending
requests. It is responsible for concatenation of time intervals and position
requests. It does it with the following algorithm organizing process traceset
calls. Here is the detailed description of the way it works :



- Revised Events Requests Servicing Algorithm (v2)

The reads are splitted in chunks. After a chunk is over, we want to check if
there is a GTK Event pending and execute it. It can add or remove events 
requests from the event requests list. If it happens, we want to start over
the algorithm from the beginning.

Two levels of priority exists. High priority and low priority. High prio
requests are serviced first, even if lower priority requests has lower start
time or position.


Data structures necessary :

List of requests added to context : list_in
List of requests not added to context : list_out

Initial state :

list_in : empty
list_out : many events requests


A. While list_in !empty and list_out !empty and !GTK Event pending
  1. If list_in is empty (need a seek)
    1.1 Add requests to list_in
      1.1.1 Find all time requests with the highest priority and lowest start
            time in list_out (ltime)
      1.1.2 Find all position requests with the highest priority and lowest
            position in list_out (lpos)
      1.1.3 If lpos.prio > ltime.prio 
                  || (lpos.prio == ltime.prio && lpos.start time < ltime)
        - Add lpos to list_in, remove them from list_out
      1.1.4 Else, (lpos.prio < ltime.prio 
                        ||(lpos.prio == ltime.prio && lpos.start time >= ltime))
        - Add ltime to list_in, remove them from list_out
    1.2 Seek
      1.2.1 If first request in list_in is a time request
        - If first req in list_in start time != current time
          - Seek to that time
      1.2.2 Else, the first request in list_in is a position request
        - If first req in list_in pos != current pos
          - If the position is the same than the saved state, restore state
          - Else, seek to that position
    1.3 Add hooks and call begin for all list_in members
      1.3.1 If !servicing
          - begin hooks called
          - servicing = TRUE
      1.3.2 call before_chunk
      1.3.3 events hooks added
  2. Else, list_in is not empty, we continue a read
    2.1 For each req of list_out
    - if req.start time == current context time
      - Add to list_in, remove from list_out
      - If !servicing
        - Call begin
        - servicing = TRUE
      - Call before_chunk
      - events hooks added
    - if req.start position == current position
      - Add to list_in, remove from list_out
      - If !servicing
        - Call begin
        - servicing = TRUE
      - Call before_chunk
      - events hooks added

  3. Find end criterions
    3.1 End time
      3.1.1 Find lowest end time in list_in
      3.1.2 Find lowest start time in list_out (>= than current time*)
                                * To eliminate lower prio requests
      3.1.3 Use lowest of both as end time
    3.2 Number of events
      3.2.1 Find lowest number of events in list_in
      3.2.2 Use min(CHUNK_NUM_EVENTS, min num events in list_in) as num_events
    3.3 End position
      3.3.1 Find lowest end position in list_in
      3.3.2 Find lowest start position in list_out (>= than current
                                                    position)
      3.3.3 Use lowest of both as end position

  4. Call process traceset middle
    4.1 Call process traceset middle (Use end criterion found in 3)
      * note : end criterion can also be viewer's hook returning TRUE
  5. After process traceset middle
    - if current context time > traceset.end time
      - For each req in list_in
        - Call end for req
        - Remove events hooks for req
        - remove req from list_in
    5.1 For each req in list_in
          - req.num -= count
          - if req.num == 0
            - Call end for req
            - Remove events hooks for req
            - remove req from list_in
          - if current context time > req.end time
            - Call end for req
            - Remove events hooks for req
            - remove req from list_in
          - if req.end pos == current pos
            - Call end for req
            - Remove events hooks for req
            - remove req from list_in
          - if req.stop_flag == TRUE
            - Call end for req
            - Remove events hooks for req
            - remove req from list_in
          - if exists one events requests in list_out that has
                  higher priority and time != current time
            - Use current position as start position for req
            - Remove start time from req
            - Call after_chunk for req
            - Remove event hooks for req
            - Put req back in list_out, remove from list_in
            - Save current state into saved_state.

B. When interrupted
  1. for each request in list_in
    1.1. Use current postition as start position
    1.2. Remove start time
    1.3. Call after_chunk
    1.4. Remove event hooks
    1.5. Put it back in list_out
  2. Save current state into saved_state.
    2.1 Free old saved state.
    2.2 save current state.





Notes :
End criterions for process traceset middle :
If the criterion is reached, event is out of boundaries and we return.
Current time >= End time
Event count > Number of events
Current position >= End position
Last hook list called returned TRUE

The >= for position is necessary to make ensure consistency between start time
requests and positions requests that happens to be at the exact same start time
and position.

We only keep one saved state in memory. If, for example, a low priority
servicing is interrupted, a high priority is serviced, then the low priority
will use the saved state to start back where it was instead of seeking to the
time. In the very specific case where a low priority servicing is interrupted,
and then a high priority servicing on top of it is also interrupted, well, the
low priority will loose its state and will have to seek back. It should not
occur often. The solution to it would be to save one state per priority.






Weaknesses

- There is a possibility that we must use seek if more than one interruption
  occurs, i.e. low priority interrupted by addition of high priority, and then
  high priority interrupted. The seek will be necessary for the low priority.
  It could be a good idea to keep one saved_state per priority ?


Strengths

- Removes the need for filtering of information supplied to the viewers.

- Viewers have a better control on their data input.

- Solves all the weaknesses idenfied in the actual boundaryless traceset
reading.

- Background processing available.