linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched/stats: Optimize /proc/schedstat printing

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQI3k8tqJD4L0u_c@shell.ilvokhin.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:49:39 +0000
From: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@...okhin.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched/stats: Optimize /proc/schedstat printing

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 03:55:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 02:46:33PM +0000, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 03:07:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 01:07:15PM +0000, Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote:
> > > > Function seq_printf supports rich format string for decimals printing,
> > > > but there is no need for it in /proc/schedstat, since majority of the
> > > > data is space separared decimals. Use seq_put_decimal_ull instead as
> > > > faster alternative.
> > > > 
> > > > Performance counter stats (truncated) for sh -c 'cat /proc/schedstat >
> > > > /dev/null' before and after applying the patch from machine with 72 CPUs
> > > > are below.
> > > > 
> > > > Before:
> > > > 
> > > >       2.94 msec task-clock               #    0.820 CPUs utilized
> > > >          1      context-switches         #  340.551 /sec
> > > >          0      cpu-migrations           #    0.000 /sec
> > > >        340      page-faults              #  115.787 K/sec
> > > > 10,327,200      instructions             #    1.89  insn per cycle
> > > >                                          #    0.10  stalled cycles per insn
> > > >  5,458,307      cycles                   #    1.859 GHz
> > > >  1,052,733      stalled-cycles-frontend  #   19.29% frontend cycles idle
> > > >  2,066,321      branches                 #  703.687 M/sec
> > > >     25,621      branch-misses            #    1.24% of all branches
> > > > 
> > > > 0.00357974 +- 0.00000209 seconds time elapsed  ( +-  0.06% )
> > > > 
> > > > After:
> > > > 
> > > >       2.50 msec task-clock              #    0.785 CPUs utilized
> > > >          1      context-switches        #  399.780 /sec
> > > >          0      cpu-migrations          #    0.000 /sec
> > > >        340      page-faults             #  135.925 K/sec
> > > >  7,371,867      instructions            #    1.59  insn per cycle
> > > >                                         #    0.13  stalled cycles per insn
> > > >  4,647,053      cycles                  #    1.858 GHz
> > > >    986,487      stalled-cycles-frontend #   21.23% frontend cycles idle
> > > >  1,591,374      branches                #  636.199 M/sec
> > > >     28,973      branch-misses           #    1.82% of all branches
> > > > 
> > > > 0.00318461 +- 0.00000295 seconds time elapsed  ( +-  0.09% )
> > > > 
> > > > This is ~11% (relative) improvement in time elapsed.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but who cares? Why do we want less obvious code for a silly stats
> > > file?
> > 
> > Thanks for the feedback, Peter.
> > 
> > Fair point that /proc/schedstat isn’t a hot path in the kernel itself,
> > but it is a hot path for monitoring software (Prometheus for example).
> 
> Aliens! I like Xenomorphs :-) But I doubt that's what you're talking
> about.
> 
> > In large fleets, these files are polled periodically (often every few
> > seconds) on every machine. The cumulative overhead adds up quickly
> > across thousands of nodes, so reducing the cost of generating these
> > stats does have a measurable operational impact. With the ongoing trend
> > toward higher core counts per machine, this cost becomes even more
> > noticeable over time.
> > 
> > I've tried to keep the code as readable as possible, but I understand if
> > you think an ~11% improvement isn't worth the added complexity. If you
> > have suggestions for making the code cleaner or the intent clearer, I’d
> > be happy to rework it.
> 
> What are they doing this for? I would much rather rework all this such
> that all the schedstat crap becomes tracepoints and all the existing
> cruft optional consumers of that.
> 

One common use case for /proc/schedstat that I'm aware of is post-mortem
analysis of scheduler behavior, for example, debugging latency,
fairness, or throughput issues after they have occurred. Continuous
polling is often done to preserve historical data, since it’s often
unclear in advance which metrics will be useful for future
investigation. I doubt historical data from /proc/schedstat is something
average users monitor daily, but kernel developers or performance
engineers are likely to use it for more in-depth analysis.

> Like I argued here:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250703141800.GX1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
> 
> Then people can consume them however makes most sense, ideally with a
> binary interface if it is high bandwidth.

I also agree that a binary interface would be a better long-term
approach, not only because the text interface has formatting costs on
the kernel side, but also due to parsing overhead in userspace. However,
implementing a full binary interface is a larger project: other files
like /proc/interrupts could benefit as well. I chose to start with a
smaller-scale change because the /proc interface is unlikely to
disappear soon, and even with better solutions available, existing
software will continue to use it for some time.