[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5616892.dGzqbEiDyy@milian-workstation>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:42:27 +0200
From: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Blake Jones <blakejones@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] perf record: Implement off-cpu profiling with BPF (v1)
On Freitag, 22. April 2022 17:01:15 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Milian,
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:21 AM Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com> wrote:
> > On Freitag, 22. April 2022 07:33:57 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This is the first version of off-cpu profiling support. Together with
> > > (PMU-based) cpu profiling, it can show holistic view of the performance
> > > characteristics of your application or system.
> >
> > Hey Namhyung,
> >
> > this is awesome news! In hotspot, I've long done off-cpu profiling
> > manually by looking at the time between --switch-events. The downside is
> > that we also need to track the sched:sched_switch event to get a call
> > stack. But this approach also works with dwarf based unwinding, and also
> > includes kernel stacks.
>
> Thanks, I've also briefly thought about the switch event based off-cpu
> profiling as it doesn't require root. But collecting call stacks is hard
> and I'd like to do it in kernel/bpf to reduce the overhead.
I'm all for reducing the overhead, I just wonder about the practicality. At
the very least, please make sure to note this limitation explicitly to end
users. As a preacher for perf, I have come across lots of people stumbling
over `perf record -g` not producing any sensible output because they are
simply not aware that this requires frame pointers which are basically non
existing on most "normal" distributions. Nowadays `man perf record` tries to
educate people, please do the same for the new `--off-cpu` switch.
> > > With BPF, it can aggregate scheduling stats for interested tasks
> > > and/or states and convert the data into a form of perf sample records.
> > > I chose the bpf-output event which is a software event supposed to be
> > > consumed by BPF programs and renamed it as "offcpu-time". So it
> > > requires no change on the perf report side except for setting sample
> > > types of bpf-output event.
> > >
> > > Basically it collects userspace callstack for tasks as it's what users
> > > want mostly. Maybe we can add support for the kernel stacks but I'm
> > > afraid that it'd cause more overhead. So the offcpu-time event will
> > > always have callchains regardless of the command line option, and it
> > > enables the children mode in perf report by default.
> >
> > Has anything changed wrt perf/bpf and user applications not compiled with
> > `- fno-omit-frame-pointer`? I.e. does this new utility only work for
> > specially compiled applications, or do we also get backtraces for
> > "normal" binaries that we can install through package managers?
>
> I am not aware of such changes, it still needs a frame pointer to get
> backtraces.
May I ask what kind of setup you are using this on? Do you use something like
Gentoo or yocto where you compile your whole system with `-fno-omit-frame-
pointer`? Because otherwise, any kind of off-cpu time in system libraries will
not be resolved properly, no?
Thanks
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@...b.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5272 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists