From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
teravest@google.com, slavapestov@google.com, ctalbott@google.com,
dhsharp@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
winget@google.com, namhyung@gmail.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] stacktrace: implement save_stack_trace_quick()
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:22:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120117022227.GD24200@somewhere.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120111163826.GC26832@google.com>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 08:38:26AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Frederic.
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 05:26:44PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:28:25AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Implement save_stack_trace_quick() which only considers the usual
> > > contexts (ie. thread and irq) and doesn't handle links between
> > > different contexts - if %current is in irq context, only backtrace in
> > > the irq stack is considered.
> >
> > The thing I don't like is the duplication that involves not only on
> > stack unwinding but also on the safety checks.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced that this is necessary or we can just add
> more features to the existing backtrace facility (and maybe make that
> more efficient) and be done with it.
Yeah probably we can do that.
>
> > > This is subset of dump_trace() done in much simpler way. It's
> > > intended to be used in hot paths where the overhead of dump_trace()
> > > can be too heavy.
> >
> > Is it? Have you found a measurable impact (outside the fact you record only
> > one stack).
>
> As I wrote in the head message, I haven't done comparative test yet
> but in the preliminary tests the CPU overhead against memory backed
> device is quite visible (roughly ~20%), so I expect it to matter.
> Note that testing against memory backed device is actually relevant,
> on faster SSDs, CPU is already a bottleneck.
>
> It would be best if we can extend the existing one to cover all the
> cases with acceptable overhead. I needed to write this minimal
> version anyway for comparison so it's posted together but no matter
> how it turns out switching them isn't difficult.
Right. So there are two major differences that may affect performances
between save_stack_trace() and save_stack_trace_quick():
- save_stack_trace() does a full walk through the stack, but it rejects
unreliable entries. So to begin with, it should use print_context_stack_bp()
that does a frame pointer walk only (in CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER case).
- It links between stacks. Doing the ->stack() that returns a value should
help in this regard.
- And dump_stack() does various more checks, perhaps we can simplify
it a bit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-17 2:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-10 18:28 [RFC PATCHSET take#2] ioblame: IO tracer with origin tracking Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 1/9] block: abstract disk iteration into disk_iter Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 2/9] block: block_bio_complete tracepoint was missing Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 17:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-01-11 17:30 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-12 0:24 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 3/9] block: add @req to bio_{front|back}_merge tracepoints Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 4/9] writeback: move struct wb_writeback_work to writeback.h Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 5/9] writeback: add more tracepoints Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 6/9] block: add block_touch_buffer tracepoint Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-01-11 17:58 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 7/9] vfs: add fcheck tracepoint Tejun Heo
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 8/9] stacktrace: implement save_stack_trace_quick() Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 16:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-01-11 16:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 17:37 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-17 2:22 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2012-01-10 18:28 ` [PATCH 9/9] block, trace: implement ioblame - IO tracer with origin tracking Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 0:25 ` Chanho Park
2012-01-11 1:04 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 1:32 ` [PATCH RESEND " Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 6:15 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-11 17:06 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-12 1:05 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-12 1:14 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-12 1:35 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-12 1:37 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-12 1:40 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-12 1:41 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-12 1:44 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-12 2:19 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-12 2:24 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 18:08 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 14:40 ` [RFC PATCHSET take#2] ioblame: " Frederic Weisbecker
2012-01-11 17:02 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-11 22:45 ` David Sharp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120117022227.GD24200@somewhere.redhat.com \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=dhsharp@google.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=slavapestov@google.com \
--cc=teravest@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=winget@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox