| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:04:25 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: Re: "perf top -g" leaking ~300MB per second. Em Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf escreveu: > On 2014.12.30 at 14:38 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > Hi David and Markus, > > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:16:43AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > > > On 12/13/14 8:26 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > >The callchain code was done initially for 'report' and when I made 'top' > > > >reuse the hist_entry code allowing 'top' to collect callchains was too > > > >easy, but then we need to go thru the callchain/hists/hist_entry code to > > > >make sure that they don't leak, will try to do it... > > > > > > > > > > As I recall it is build up of the dead_threads list. > > > > Maybe. But I guess it's because of leak of callchains.. > > > > Markus, could you please test below patch how much it affects? > > Thanks Namhyung. It leaks an order of magnitude less memory now: > ~30MB/sec on my machine. > > Valgrind shows (last entries of the list): > ... > ==20512== 7,225,920 bytes in 17,370 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 295 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x4A6996: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x4A6996: hist_entry__new (hist.c:309) > ==20512== by 0x4A8249: add_hist_entry (hist.c:431) > ==20512== by 0x4A8249: __hists__add_entry (hist.c:477) > ==20512== by 0x4A8902: iter_add_single_cumulative_entry (hist.c:730) > ==20512== by 0x4A8A64: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:876) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x4395EE: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x4395EE: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:974) > ==20512== by 0x4395EE: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) #1) Ok, those are the hist_entries that were not decayed, if top continued they would eventually be decayed, freed, etc, i.e. the exit of top is equivalent to the last decay. > ==20512== > ==20512== 8,922,480 bytes in 159,330 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 296 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: fill_node (callchain.c:450) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: add_child (callchain.c:473) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: append_chain_children (callchain.c:596) > ==20512== by 0x48514E: callchain_append (callchain.c:672) > ==20512== by 0x4A8947: iter_add_single_cumulative_entry (hist.c:739) > ==20512== by 0x4A8A64: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:876) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:996) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) > ==20512== > ==20512== 11,050,136 bytes in 1,663 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 297 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: symbol__alloc_hist (annotate.c:455) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: symbol__inc_addr_samples (annotate.c:507) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: hist_entry__inc_addr_samples (annotate.c:521) > ==20512== by 0x437A65: perf_top__record_precise_ip (builtin-top.c:195) > ==20512== by 0x437A65: hist_iter__top_callback (builtin-top.c:688) > ==20512== by 0x4A8AC8: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:892) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:996) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) These (symbol__alloc_hist) we need to free up the decaying of per RIP annotation gets to zero... Will check where to do this... > ==20512== > ==20512== 24,920,064 bytes in 59,904 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 298 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x4A6996: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x4A6996: hist_entry__new (hist.c:309) > ==20512== by 0x4A8249: add_hist_entry (hist.c:431) > ==20512== by 0x4A8249: __hists__add_entry (hist.c:477) > ==20512== by 0x4A8902: iter_add_single_cumulative_entry (hist.c:730) > ==20512== by 0x4A8A64: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:876) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:996) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) Same thing as #1. > ==20512== > ==20512== 26,147,680 bytes in 62,855 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 299 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x4A6996: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x4A6996: hist_entry__new (hist.c:309) > ==20512== by 0x4A8249: add_hist_entry (hist.c:431) > ==20512== by 0x4A8249: __hists__add_entry (hist.c:477) > ==20512== by 0x4A8728: iter_add_next_cumulative_entry (hist.c:803) > ==20512== by 0x4A8AA5: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:887) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:996) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) > ==20512== > ==20512== 44,939,792 bytes in 3,788 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 300 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: symbol__alloc_hist (annotate.c:455) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: symbol__inc_addr_samples (annotate.c:507) > ==20512== by 0x44F7BF: hist_entry__inc_addr_samples (annotate.c:521) > ==20512== by 0x437A65: perf_top__record_precise_ip (builtin-top.c:195) > ==20512== by 0x437A65: hist_iter__top_callback (builtin-top.c:688) > ==20512== by 0x4A8AC8: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:892) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x4395EE: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x4395EE: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:974) > ==20512== by 0x4395EE: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) > ==20512== > ==20512== 81,248,440 bytes in 1,450,865 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 301 of 301 > ==20512== at 0x402B000: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:623) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: zalloc (util.h:189) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: fill_node (callchain.c:450) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: add_child (callchain.c:473) > ==20512== by 0x4821FE: append_chain_children (callchain.c:596) > ==20512== by 0x48514E: callchain_append (callchain.c:672) > ==20512== by 0x4A8768: iter_add_next_cumulative_entry (hist.c:812) > ==20512== by 0x4A8AA5: hist_entry_iter__add (hist.c:887) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_event__process_sample (builtin-top.c:787) > ==20512== by 0x43787A: perf_top__mmap_read_idx (builtin-top.c:854) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: perf_top__mmap_read (builtin-top.c:871) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: __cmd_top (builtin-top.c:996) > ==20512== by 0x43967E: cmd_top (builtin-top.c:1266) > ==20512== by 0x41B702: run_builtin (perf.c:341) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: handle_internal_command (perf.c:400) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: run_argv (perf.c:444) > ==20512== by 0x41AE51: main (perf.c:559) > ==20512== > ==20512== LEAK SUMMARY: > ==20512== definitely lost: 56,810,427 bytes in 5,479 blocks > ==20512== indirectly lost: 4,000 bytes in 125 blocks > ==20512== possibly lost: 210,493,048 bytes in 2,552,578 blocks > ==20512== still reachable: 18,258 bytes in 242 blocks > ==20512== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > > -- > Markus -- 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