On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:03:24 +0530 Pratyush Anand <panand@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Pratyush, I was digging through old email, and came across this. Our thread sorta just died. Are you still interested in implementing "trace-cmd top"? We've changed the code structure quite a bit since this came out so it would require a rewrite. But would actually fit better now. -- Steve > On Thursday 27 April 2017 10:19 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:32:43 +0530 > > Pratyush Anand <panand@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I will implement your review comments and will send next revision. > >> However, I had couple of observation which I was unable to justify: > >> > >> # ./trace-cmd top -s /tmp/test > >> # ./trace-cmd top -p /tmp/test | grep trace-cmd > >> 15292 trace-cmd 22144 15808 > > > > What does it give for your /tmp/test ? > > /tmp/test is name of socket through which both trace aggregator (-s) and > printer (-p) process are talking to each other. > > > > > Note, tracing doesn't start till after trace-cmd is loaded. Everything > > before is not going to be seen. > > Yes. So with `./trace-cmd top -s /tmp/test` tracing starts and it aggregates > stats for all processes including self process as well. After some time I > execute `./trace-cmd top -p /tmp/test` which prints stats for all the > processes including self. In the above example, I see that peak memory > calculated for self process (`./trace-cmd top -s /tmp/test`) was 22144KB. > > > > >> Here,15292 is the pid of trace-cmd task > >> 22144 KB is the peak memory usage > >> 15808 KB is the current memory usage > >> > >> Now check rss component from statm > >> # cat /proc/15292/statm > >> 50 35 23 7 0 12 0 36 > >> > >> This is a result on ARM64/64KB page size. Therefore, as per statm rss is 35 > >> pages = 35*64 = 2240KB > >> I patched my kernel [2] for test purpose, so that statm reports peak memory as > >> well. Here, the last extra entry in statm output is peak memory and it is 36 > >> pages = 2304KB. > >> So, this is a huge difference between what has been reported by statm and what > >> we get from trace-cmd. > >> I understand that `trace-cmd top` output would only be approximate, because > >> many of the memory could be allocated by task and freed in interrupt context. > >> So, many a time it can differ. But, is such a huge difference justified? If > >> yes, can we count on the output of this utility to find early boot time oom > >> issues? > > > > Doesn't it only just trace the memory usage of when the tracing starts? > > So,should be less than what is being reported by statm, right? But, here we > see that value reported by trace-cmd is far more than rss value of statm. > > Well, there is one known bug in the code, which I am trying to find out a way. > But, that should not cause this huge difference. > > When we receive a trace entry for any new process, we read rss value from > statm. We think,that these are the memory consumption by that process before > tracing started. So,we initialize peak and current memory value for that > process with rss from statm, and then we increase current when there is an > entry for mm_page_alloc() and decrease when an entry for mm_page_free(). peak > value of current at any point is reported as peak memory. > > Now, lets consider a process p1 which was existing before tracing started. its > rss was having value r1 KB. we receive first trace entry for p1, which says > 8KB was allocated for p1. > > p1->cur = r1 + 8; > p->peak = r1 + 8; > > We receive another entry with 4KB de-allocation. > > p1->cur = r1 + 4; > p->peak = r1 + 8; > > There would have been some of these entries which have also been taken care in > statm/rss (r1 here). We do not know how many entries were already considered. > Currently, these n (unknown) entries [which had been generated between (a) 1st > tarce entry and (b) when trace-cmd top reads statm/rss] are considered twice, > which is a bug. > > ~Pratyush > > >> > >> [1] > >> https://github.com/pratyushanand/trace-cmd/commit/602c2cd96aa613633ad20c6d382e41f7db37a2a4 > >> [2] > >> https://github.com/pratyushanand/linux/commit/197e2045361b6b70085c46c78ea6607d8afce517 > >
|