On Mon, May 20 2019, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> On 5/10/2019 5:57 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 10 2019, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:09:58PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>>> As noted in TODOs in the script there's various stuff I'd like to do
>>>> better, and this also shows how we need a lot more trace regions to get
>>>> granular data.
>>>
>>> Hmm. My gut reaction was: doesn't "perf record -g make test" already
>>> give us that granular data? I know "perf" isn't available everywhere,
>>> but the idea of the FlameGraph repo is that it takes input from a lot of
>>> sources (though I don't know if it supports any Windows-specific formats
>>> yet, which is presumably a point of interesting to trace-2 authors).
>>>
>>> But having generated such a flamegraph, it's not all that helpful. It
>>> mainly tells us that we spend a lot of time on fork/exec. Which is no
>>> surprise, since the test suite is geared not towards heavy workloads,
>>> but lots of tiny functionality tests.
>>>
>>> TBH, I'm not sure that flame-graphing the test suite is going to be all
>>> that useful in the long run. It's going to be heavily weighted by the
>>> types of things the test suite does. Flamegraphs are good for
>>> understanding where your time is going for a particular workload, but
>>> the workload of the test suite is not that interesting.
>>>
>>> And once you do have a particular workload of interest that you can
>>> replay, then I think the granular "perf" results really can be helpful.
>>>
>>> I think the trace2 flamegraph would be most useful if you were
>>> collecting across a broad spectrum of workloads done by a user. You
>>> _can_ do that with perf or similar tools, but it can be a bit awkward.
>>> I do wonder how painful it would be to alias "git" to "perf record git"
>>> for a day or something.
>>
>> Yeah I should have mentioned that I'm mainly linking to the test suite
>> rendering as a demo.
>>
>> My actual use-case for this is to see what production nodes are spending
>> their time on, similar to what Microsoft is doing with their use of this
>> facility.
>>
>> The test suite serves as a really good test-case for the output, and to
>> stress-test my aggregation script, since we're pretty much guaranteed to
>> run all our commands, and cover a lot of unusual cases.
>>
>> It also shows that we've got a long way to go in improving the trace2
>> facility, i.e. adding region enter/leave for some of the things we spend
>> the most time on.
>>
>
> Very nice!
>
> Yes, there is more work to do to add more regions to get more
> granular data for interesting/problematic things. My primary
> goal in this phase has been to get the basic machinery in place
> and be vetted with some universally interesting regions, such as
> reading/writing the index and the phases of status.
>
> Going forward, we can trivially (permanently) add new regions as we
> want. I tend to use temporary "experimental" regions during my perf
> investigations so that I don't clutter up the mainline source with
> uninteresting noise.
Indeed, a lot more regions are needed.
> WRT the TODO's in your script:
>
> [] I don't think data events will be useful for your usage. The data
> values are orthogonal to the time values.
I haven't done this, so I'm not asserting that it's useful, but from
some brief grepping a few datapoints are overwhelmingly common, and can
be faked up into regions of sorts for the purposes of a flamegraph.
E.g. "git checkout" will reliably have read/version early on, and then
write/version, in that case mostly/entirely redundant to the
do_{read,write}_index region, but in general I think we'll be able to
loosely plot data points say as "given the median runtime, here's the
median % of time into the command we first encounter this data point".
> [] I would add the child_start/_exit events to the stack. This will
> give you the names of non-builtin/shell commands and hooks. The
> various "child_class" and "use_shell" and "hook_name" fields will help
> you avoid duplicate stack frames (which you'll get for builtin
> commands).
Yeah that's very useful. Any reason not to do something like this:
diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
index 1bf9c94550..6c926ae013 100644
--- a/git.c
+++ b/git.c
@@ -698 +698 @@ static void execv_dashed_external(const char **argv)
- trace2_cmd_name("_run_dashed_");
+ trace2_cmd_name(is_builtin(argv[0]) ? argv[0] : "_run_dashed_");
I haven't tested, but we e.g. report 'git-submodule' as just
'_run_dashed_', seems we could do better...
