On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:50 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 03:41:37PM -0800, Josh Don wrote:
>
> > + seq_puts(seq, "usage_usec");
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > + cached_bstat = per_cpu_ptr(&cached_percpu_stats, cpu);
> > + val = cached_bstat->cputime.sum_exec_runtime;
> > + do_div(val, NSEC_PER_USEC);
> > + seq_printf(seq, " %llu", val);
> > + }
> > + seq_puts(seq, "\n");
> > +
> > + seq_puts(seq, "user_usec");
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > + cached_bstat = per_cpu_ptr(&cached_percpu_stats, cpu);
> > + val = cached_bstat->cputime.utime;
> > + do_div(val, NSEC_PER_USEC);
> > + seq_printf(seq, " %llu", val);
> > + }
> > + seq_puts(seq, "\n");
> > +
> > + seq_puts(seq, "system_usec");
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > + cached_bstat = per_cpu_ptr(&cached_percpu_stats, cpu);
> > + val = cached_bstat->cputime.stime;
> > + do_div(val, NSEC_PER_USEC);
> > + seq_printf(seq, " %llu", val);
> > + }
> > + seq_puts(seq, "\n");
>
> This is an anti-pattern; given enough CPUs (easy) this will trivially
> overflow the 1 page seq buffer.
>
> People are already struggling to fix existing ABI, lets not make the
> problem worse.
Is the concern there just the extra overhead from making multiple
trips into this handler and re-allocating the buffer until it is large
enough to take all the output? In that case, we could pre-allocate
with a size of the right order of magnitude, similar to /proc/stat.
Lack of per-cpu stats is a gap between cgroup v1 and v2, for which v2
can easily support this interface given that it already tracks the
stats percpu internally. I opted to dump them all in a single file
here, to match the consolidation that occurred from cpuacct->cpu.stat.
