[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277948436.25782.5.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:40:36 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: shrink max latency ringbuffer if unnecessary
Hi Kosaki,
FYI, could you send emails to my goodmis account. I can easily miss
emails sent to my RH account since it is usually flooded with RH
Bugzilla reports.
(more below)
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 12:06 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Documentation/trace/ftrace.txt says
>
> buffer_size_kb:
>
> This sets or displays the number of kilobytes each CPU
> buffer can hold. The tracer buffers are the same size
> for each CPU. The displayed number is the size of the
> CPU buffer and not total size of all buffers. The
> trace buffers are allocated in pages (blocks of memory
> that the kernel uses for allocation, usually 4 KB in size).
> If the last page allocated has room for more bytes
> than requested, the rest of the page will be used,
> making the actual allocation bigger than requested.
> ( Note, the size may not be a multiple of the page size
> due to buffer management overhead. )
>
> This can only be updated when the current_tracer
> is set to "nop".
>
> But it's incorrect. currently total memory consumption is
> 'buffer_size_kb x CPUs x 2'.
>
> Why two times difference is there? because ftrace implicitly allocate
> the buffer for max latency too.
>
> That makes sad result when admin want to use large buffer. (If admin
> want full logging and makes detail analysis). example, If admin
> have 24 CPUs machine and write 200MB to buffer_size_kb, the system
> consume ~10GB memory (200MB x 24 x 2). umm.. 5GB memory waste is
> usually unacceptable.
>
> Fortunatelly, almost all users don't use max latency feature.
> The max latency buffer can be disabled easily.
>
> This patch shrink buffer size of the max latency buffer if
> unnecessary.
Actually, what would be better is to add a "use_max_tr" field to the
struct tracer in trace.h. Then the latency tracers (irqsoff,
preemptoff, preemptirqsoff, wakeup, and wakeup_rt) can have this field
set.
Then, we can resize or even remove the max ring buffer when the
"use_max_tr" is not set (and on bootup). On enabling a latency tracer,
we can allocate the buffer. When we enable another tracer (or nop) if
the use_max_tr is not set, then we can remove the buffer.
Would you be able to do something like that?
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists