| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140428194642.GQ5328@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:46:42 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 00/17] perf report: Add -F option for specifying
output fields (v4)
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:00:15PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:41:39PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Don,
> >
> > 2014-04-23 (수), 08:58 -0400, Don Zickus:
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:15:35PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:16:47 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > > > ./perf mem record -a grep -r foo /* > /dev/null
> > > > > ./perf mem report -F overhead,symbol_daddr,pid -s symbol_daddr,pid --stdio
> > > > >
> > > > > I was thinking I could sort everything based on the symbol_daddr and pid.
> > > > > Then re-sort the output to display the highest 'symbol_daddr,pid' pair.
> > > > > But it didn't seem to work that way. Instead it seems like I get the
> > > > > original sort just displayed in the -F format.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please show me the output of your example?
> > >
> > >
> > > # To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only
> > > # options.
> > > #
> > > # Samples: 96K of event 'cpu/mem-loads/pp'
> > > # Total weight : 1102938
> > > # Sort order : symbol_daddr,pid
> > > #
> > > # Overhead Data Symbol Command: Pid
> > > # ........ ......................................................................
> > > #
> > > 0.00% [k] 0xffff8807a8c1cf80 grep:116437
> > > 0.00% [k] 0xffff8807a8c8cee0 grep:116437
> > > 0.00% [k] 0xffff8807a8dceea0 grep:116437
> > > 0.01% [k] 0xffff8807a9298dc0 grep:116437
> > > 0.01% [k] 0xffff8807a934be40 grep:116437
> > > 0.00% [k] 0xffff8807a9416ec0 grep:116437
> > > 0.02% [k] 0xffff8807a9735700 grep:116437
> > > 0.00% [k] 0xffff8807a98e9460 grep:116437
> > > 0.02% [k] 0xffff8807a9afc890 grep:116437
> > > 0.00% [k] 0xffff8807aa64feb0 grep:116437
> > > 0.02% [k] 0xffff8807aa6b0030 grep:116437
> >
> > Hmm.. it seems that it's exactly sorted by the data symbol addresses, so
> > I don't see any problem here. What did you expect? If you want to see
> > those symbol_daddr,pid pair to be sorted by overhead, you can use the
> > one of -F or -s option only.
>
> Good question. I guess I was hoping to see things sorted by overhead, but
> as you said removing all the -F options gives me that. I have been
> distracted with other fires this week, I lost focus at what I was trying
> to accomplish.
>
> Let me figure that out again and try to come up with a more clear email
> explaining what I was looking for (for myself at least :-) ).
Ok. I think I figured out what I need. This might be quite long..
Our orignal concept for the c2c tool was to sort hist entries into
cachelines, filter in only the HITMs and stores and re-sort based on
cachelines with the most weight.
So using today's perf with a new search called 'cacheline' to achieve
this (copy-n-pasted):
----
#define CACHE_LINESIZE 64
#define CLINE_OFFSET_MSK (CACHE_LINESIZE - 1)
#define CLADRS(a) ((a) & ~(CLINE_OFFSET_MSK))
#define CLOFFSET(a) (int)((a) & (CLINE_OFFSET_MSK))
static int64_t
sort__cacheline_cmp(struct hist_entry *left, struct hist_entry *right)
{
u64 l, r;
struct map *l_map, *r_map;
if (!left->mem_info) return -1;
if (!right->mem_info) return 1;
/* group event types together */
if (left->cpumode > right->cpumode) return -1;
if (left->cpumode < right->cpumode) return 1;
l_map = left->mem_info->daddr.map;
r_map = right->mem_info->daddr.map;
/* properly sort NULL maps to help combine them */
if (!l_map && !r_map)
goto addr;
if (!l_map) return -1;
if (!r_map) return 1;
if (l_map->maj > r_map->maj) return -1;
if (l_map->maj < r_map->maj) return 1;
if (l_map->min > r_map->min) return -1;
if (l_map->min < r_map->min) return 1;
if (l_map->ino > r_map->ino) return -1;
if (l_map->ino < r_map->ino) return 1;
if (l_map->ino_generation > r_map->ino_generation) return -1;
if (l_map->ino_generation < r_map->ino_generation) return 1;
/*
* Addresses with no major/minor numbers are assumed to be
* anonymous in userspace. Sort those on pid then address.
*
* The kernel and non-zero major/minor mapped areas are
* assumed to be unity mapped. Sort those on address.
*/
if ((left->cpumode != PERF_RECORD_MISC_KERNEL) &&
!l_map->maj && !l_map->min && !l_map->ino &&
!l_map->ino_generation) {
/* userspace anonymous */
if (left->thread->pid_ > right->thread->pid_) return -1;
if (left->thread->pid_ < right->thread->pid_) return 1;
}
addr:
/* al_addr does all the right addr - start + offset calculations */
l = CLADRS(left->mem_info->daddr.al_addr);
r = CLADRS(right->mem_info->daddr.al_addr);
if (l > r) return -1;
if (l < r) return 1;
return 0;
}
----
I can get the following 'perf mem report' outputs
I used a special program called hitm_test3 which purposely generates
HITMs either locally or remotely based on cpu input. It does this by
having processA grab lockX from cacheline1, release lockY from cacheline2,
then processB grabs lockY from cacheline2 and releases lockX from
cacheline1 (IOW ping pong two locks across two cachelines), found here
http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/hitm_test/
[ perf mem record -a hitm_test -s1,19 -c1000000 -t]
(where -s is the cpus to bind to, -c is loop count, -t disables internal
perf tracking)
(using 'perf mem' to auto generate correct record/report options for
cachelines)
(the hitm counts should be higher, but sampling is a crapshoot. Using
ld_lat=30 would probably filter most of the L1 hits)
Table 1: normal perf
#perf mem report --stdio -s cacheline,pid
# Overhead Samples Cacheline Command: Pid
# ........ ............ ....................... ....................
#
47.61% 42257 [.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344
46.14% 42596 [.] 0000000000000000 hitm_test3:146343
2.16% 2074 [.] 0x0000000000003340 hitm_test3:146344
1.88% 1796 [.] 0x0000000000003340 hitm_test3:146343
0.20% 140 [.] 0x00007ffff291ce00 hitm_test3:146344
0.18% 126 [.] 0x00007ffff291ce00 hitm_test3:146343
0.10% 1 [k] 0xffff88042f071500 swapper: 0
0.07% 1 [k] 0xffff88042ef747c0 watchdog/11: 62
...
Ok, now I know the hottest cachelines. Not to bad. However, in order to
determine cacheline contention, it would be nice to know the offsets into
the cacheline to see if there is contention or not. Unfortunately, the way
the sorting works here, all the hist_entry data was combined into each
cacheline, so I lose my granularity...
I can do:
Table 2: normal perf
#perf mem report --stdio -s cacheline,pid,dso_daddr,mem
# Overhead Samples Cacheline Command: Pid
# Data Object Memory access
# ........ ............ ....................... ....................
# .............................. ........................
#
45.24% 42581 [.] 0000000000000000 hitm_test3:146343 SYSV00000000 (deleted) L1 hit
44.43% 42231 [.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344 SYSV00000000 (deleted) L1 hit
2.19% 13 [.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344 SYSV00000000 (deleted) Local RAM hit
2.16% 2074 [.] 0x0000000000003340 hitm_test3:146344 hitm_test3 L1 hit
1.88% 1796 [.] 0x0000000000003340 hitm_test3:146343 hitm_test3 L1 hit
1.00% 13 [.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344 SYSV00000000 (deleted) Remote Cache (1 hop) hit
0.91% 15 [.] 0000000000000000 hitm_test3:146343 SYSV00000000 (deleted) Remote Cache (1 hop) hit
0.20% 140 [.] 0x00007ffff291ce00 hitm_test3:146344 [stack] L1 hit
0.18% 126 [.] 0x00007ffff291ce00 hitm_test3:146343 [stack] L1 hit
Now I have some granularity (though the program keeps hitting the same
offset in the cacheline) and some different levels of memory operations.
Seems like a step forward. However, the cacheline is broken up a little
bit (see 0x0000000000000080 is split up three ways).
I can now see where the cache contention is but I don't know how prevalent
it is (what percentage of the cacheline is under contention). No need to
waste time with cachelines that have little or no contention.
Hmm, what if I used the -F option to group all the cachelines and their
offsets together.
Table 3: perf with -F
#perf mem report --stdio -s cacheline,pid,dso_daddr,mem -i don.data -F cacheline,pid,dso_daddr,mem,overhead,sample|grep 0000000000000
[k] 0000000000000000 swapper: 0 [kernel.kallsyms] Uncached hit 0.00% 1
[k] 0000000000000000 kipmi0: 1500 [kernel.kallsyms] Uncached hit 0.02% 1
[.] 0000000000000000 hitm_test3:146343 SYSV00000000 (deleted) L1 hit 45.24% 42581
[.] 0000000000000000 hitm_test3:146343 SYSV00000000 (deleted) Remote Cache (1 hop) hit 0.91% 15
[.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344 SYSV00000000 (deleted) L1 hit 44.43% 42231
[.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344 SYSV00000000 (deleted) Local RAM hit 2.19% 13
[.] 0x0000000000000080 hitm_test3:146344 SYSV00000000 (deleted) Remote Cache (1 hop) hit 1.00% 13
Now I have the ability to see the whole cacheline easily and can probably
roughly calculate the contention in my head. Of course there was some
pre-determined knowledge that was needed to get this info (like which
cacheline is interesting from Table 1).
Of course, our c2c tool was trying to make the output more readable and
more obvious such that the user didn't have to know what to look for.
Internally our tool sorts similar to Table2, but then resorts onto a new
rbtree with a struct c2c_hit based on the hottest cachelines. Based on
this new rbtree we can print our analysis easily.
This new rbtree is slightly different than the -F output in that we
'group' cacheline entries together and re-sort that group. The -F option
just resorts the sorted hist_entry and has no concept of grouping.
We would prefer to have a 'group' sorting concept as we believe that is
the easiest way to organize the data. But I don't know if that can be
incorporated into the 'perf' tool itself, or just keep that concept local
to our flavor of the perf subcommand.
I am hoping this semi-concocted example gives a better picture of the
problem I am trying to wrestle with.
Help? Thoughts?
Cheers,
Don
--
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