[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOgjDMgcKZAGP0-QW9uzCM28eKdZvA49KoDQ=RnAnJL=7_zL5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:34:21 +0800
From: 郑琦 <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
peterz@...radead.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
songmuchun@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] x86: fix get_wchan() not support the ORC unwinder
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:21 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/21 5:46 AM, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > Currently, the kernel CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC option is enabled by
> > default on x86, but the implementation of get_wchan() is still
> > based on the frame pointer unwinder, so the /proc/<pid>/wchan
> > always return 0 regardless of whether the task <pid> is running.
> >
> > We reimplement the get_wchan() by calling stack_trace_save_tsk(),
> > which is adapted to the ORC and frame pointer unwinders.
>
> How much slower does this make ps?
I used the bpftrace tool to test the running time of get_wchan() in the two
cases of the ORC and frame pointer unwinders, the test script and
the result are as follows:
the test script:
bpftrace -e 'kprobe:get_wchan { @start[tid] = nsecs; } kretprobe: get_wchan
/@...rt[tid]/ { @ns[comm] = hist(nsecs - @start[tid]); delete(@start[tid]); }'
the result:
1) ORC unwinder ( before applying this patch )
@ns[ps]:
[512, 1K) 4609 |@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[1K, 2K) 18599 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[2K, 4K) 1848 |@@@@@ |
[4K, 8K) 307 | |
[8K, 16K) 74 | |
[16K, 32K) 12 | |
73% of the cases are in the [1K, 2K) range.
Notice: In this case, the get_wchan() always returns the wrong value of 0.
2) ORC unwinder ( after applying this patch )
@ns[ps]:
[512, 1K) 536 |@ |
[1K, 2K) 19945 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[2K, 4K) 5604 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[4K, 8K) 246 | |
[8K, 16K) 154 | |
[16K, 32K) 18 | |
75% of the cases are in the [1K, 2K) range.
3) frame point unwinder ( before applying this patch )
@ns[ps]:
[512, 1K) 245 | |
[1K, 2K) 16577 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[2K, 4K) 2788 |@@@@@@@@ |
[4K, 8K) 190 | |
[8K, 16K) 74 | |
[16K, 32K) 9 | |
83% of the cases are in the [1K, 2K) range.
4) frame point unwinder ( after applying this patch )
@ns[ps]:
[512, 1K) 85 | |
[1K, 2K) 12023 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
[2K, 4K) 7418 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
[4K, 8K) 232 |@ |
[8K, 16K) 104 | |
[16K, 32K) 18 | |
60% of the cases are in the [1K, 2K) range.
In summary, the running time of get_wchan() has increased after applying this
patch. But the get_wchan() is not the hotspot function, and this is a bug in the
default ORC option, so I think these increased runtimes are acceptable.
In addition, this issue has existed for nearly 4 years and no one has
fixed it, if
nobody cares about the return value of the get_wchan(), maybe we can return
0 or remove this function directly. What do you think?
Best regards,
Qi Zheng
>
> --Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists