Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 23:02:07 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dyoung@...hat.com, xlpang@...hat.com,
        "linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [trace-cmd Patch RFC] trace-cmd: top: A new interface to detect
 peak memory

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:03:24 +0530
Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com> wrote:

Hi Pratyush,

I was digging through old email, and came across this. Our thread sorta
just died. Are you still interested in implementing "trace-cmd top"?

We've changed the code structure quite a bit since this came out so it
would require a rewrite. But would actually fit better now.

-- Steve


> On Thursday 27 April 2017 10:19 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:32:43 +0530
> > Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> I will implement your review comments and will send next revision.
> >> However, I had couple of observation which I was unable to justify:
> >>
> >> # ./trace-cmd top -s /tmp/test
> >> # ./trace-cmd top -p /tmp/test | grep trace-cmd
> >>    15292           trace-cmd               22144           15808  
> >
> > What does it give for your /tmp/test ?  
> 
> /tmp/test is name of socket through which both trace aggregator (-s) and 
> printer (-p) process are talking to each other.
> 
> >
> > Note, tracing doesn't start till after trace-cmd is loaded. Everything
> > before is not going to be seen.  
> 
> Yes. So with `./trace-cmd top -s /tmp/test` tracing starts and it aggregates 
> stats for all processes including self process as well. After some time I 
> execute `./trace-cmd top -p /tmp/test` which prints stats for all the 
> processes including self. In the above example, I see that peak memory 
> calculated for self process (`./trace-cmd top -s /tmp/test`) was 22144KB.
> 
> >  
> >> Here,15292 is the pid of trace-cmd task
> >> 22144 KB is the peak memory usage
> >> 15808 KB is the current memory usage
> >>
> >> Now check rss component from statm
> >> # cat /proc/15292/statm
> >>    50 35 23 7 0 12 0 36
> >>
> >> This is a result on ARM64/64KB page size. Therefore, as per statm rss is 35
> >> pages = 35*64 = 2240KB
> >> I patched my kernel [2] for test purpose, so that statm reports peak memory as
> >> well. Here, the last extra entry in statm output is peak memory and it is 36
> >> pages = 2304KB.
> >> So, this is a huge difference between what has been reported by statm and what
> >> we get from trace-cmd.
> >> I understand that `trace-cmd top` output would only be approximate, because
> >> many of the memory could be allocated by task and freed in interrupt context.
> >> So, many a time it can differ. But, is such a huge difference justified? If
> >> yes, can we count on the output of this utility to find early boot time oom
> >> issues?  
> >
> > Doesn't it only just trace the memory usage of when the tracing starts?  
> 
> So,should be less than what is being reported by statm, right? But, here we 
> see that value reported by trace-cmd is far more than rss value of statm.
> 
> Well, there is one known bug in the code, which I am trying to find out a way. 
> But, that should not cause this huge difference.
> 
> When we receive a trace entry for any new process, we read rss value from 
> statm. We think,that these are the memory consumption by that process before 
> tracing started. So,we initialize peak and current memory value for that 
> process with rss from statm, and then we increase current when there is an 
> entry for mm_page_alloc() and decrease when an entry for mm_page_free(). peak 
> value of current at any point is reported as peak memory.
> 
> Now, lets consider a process p1 which was existing before tracing started. its 
> rss was having value r1 KB. we receive first trace entry for p1, which says 
> 8KB was allocated for p1.
> 
> p1->cur = r1 + 8;
> p->peak = r1 + 8;
> 
> We receive another entry with 4KB de-allocation.
> 
> p1->cur = r1 + 4;
> p->peak = r1 + 8;
> 
> There would have been some of these entries which have also been taken care in 
> statm/rss (r1 here). We do not know how many entries were already considered.
> Currently, these n (unknown) entries [which had been generated between (a) 1st 
> tarce entry and (b) when trace-cmd top reads statm/rss] are considered twice, 
> which is a bug.
> 
> ~Pratyush
> 
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://github.com/pratyushanand/trace-cmd/commit/602c2cd96aa613633ad20c6d382e41f7db37a2a4
> >> [2]
> >> https://github.com/pratyushanand/linux/commit/197e2045361b6b70085c46c78ea6607d8afce517  
> >  

Powered by blists - more mailing lists