Hi Yosry,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 05:15:39PM GMT, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:26 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 06:24:55PM GMT, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 6:08 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:46:22 -0700
> > > > Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > > @@ -71,6 +71,10 @@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > > > > > +#include <trace/events/memcg.h>
> > > > > > +#undef CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > #include <trace/events/vmscan.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct cgroup_subsys memory_cgrp_subsys __read_mostly;
> > > > > > @@ -682,7 +686,9 @@ void __mod_memcg_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, enum memcg_stat_item idx,
> > > > > > return;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __this_cpu_add(memcg->vmstats_percpu->state[i], val);
> > > > > > - memcg_rstat_updated(memcg, memcg_state_val_in_pages(idx, val));
> > > > > > + val = memcg_state_val_in_pages(idx, val);
> > > > > > + memcg_rstat_updated(memcg, val);
> > > > > > + trace_mod_memcg_state(memcg, idx, val);
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it too unreasonable to include the stat name?
> > > > >
> > > > > The index has to be correlated with the kernel config and perhaps even
> > > > > version. It's not a big deal, but if performance is not a concern when
> > > > > tracing is enabled anyway, maybe we can lookup the name here (or in
> > > > > TP_fast_assign()).
> > > >
> > > > What name? Is it looked up from idx? If so, you can do it on the reading of
> >
> > Does reading side mean the one reading /sys/kernel/tracing/trace will do
> > the translation from enums to string?
> >
> > > > the trace event where performance is not an issue. See the __print_symbolic()
> > > > and friends in samples/trace_events/trace-events-sample.h
> > >
> > > Yeah they can be found using idx. Thanks for referring us to
> > > __print_symbolic(), I suppose for this to work we need to construct an
> > > array of {idx, name}. I think we can replace the existing memory_stats
> > > and memcg1_stats/memcg1_stat_names arrays with something that we can
> > > reuse for tracing, so we wouldn't need to consume extra space.
> > >
> > > Shakeel, what do you think?
> >
> > Cc Daniel & Martin
> >
> > I was planning to use bpftrace which can use dwarf/btf to convert the
> > raw int to its enum string. Martin provided the following command to
> > extract the translation from the kernel.
> >
> > $ bpftool btf dump file /sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux | grep -A10 node_stat_item
> > [2264] ENUM 'node_stat_item' encoding=UNSIGNED size=4 vlen=46
> > 'NR_LRU_BASE' val=0
> > 'NR_INACTIVE_ANON' val=0
> > 'NR_ACTIVE_ANON' val=1
> > 'NR_INACTIVE_FILE' val=2
> > 'NR_ACTIVE_FILE' val=3
> > 'NR_UNEVICTABLE' val=4
> > 'NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B' val=5
> > 'NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B' val=6
> > 'NR_ISOLATED_ANON' val=7
> > 'NR_ISOLATED_FILE' val=8
> > ...
> >
> > My point is userspace tools can use existing infra to extract this
> > information.
> >
> > However I am not against adding __print_symbolic() (but without any
> > duplication), so users reading /sys/kernel/tracing/trace directly can
> > see more useful information as well. Please post a follow up patch after
> > this one.
>
> I briefly looked into this and I think it would be annoying to have
> this, unfortunately. Even if we rework the existing arrays with memcg
> stat names to be in a format conforming to tracing, we would need to
> move them out to a separate header to avoid a circular dependency.
>
> Additionally, for __count_memcg_events() things will be more
> complicated because the names are not in an array in memcontrol.c, but
> we use vm_event_name() and the relevant names are part of a larger
> array, vmstat_text, which we would need to rework similarly.
>
> I think this would be easier to implement if we can somehow provide a
> callback that returns the name based on the index, rather than an
> array. But even then, we would need to specify a different callback
> for each event, so it won't be as simple as specifying the callback in
> the event class.
>
> All in all, unless we realize there is something that is fundamentally
> more difficult to do in userspace, I think it's not worth adding this
> unfortunately :/
Turned out to be quite straightforward to do in userspace:
https://github.com/bpftrace/bpftrace/pull/3515 .
A nice property is the resolution occurs out of line and saves the
kernel some cycles in the fast path.
Thanks,
Daniel
