From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Chandramouleeswaran,
Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>, "Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix symbol processing bug and greatly improve performance
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 09:01:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130507070127.GA17830@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1367847833-4932-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
* Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> wrote:
> When "perf record" was used on a large machine with a lot of CPUs,
> the perf post-processing time could take a lot of minutes and even
> hours depending on how large the resulting perf.data file was.
>
> While running AIM7 1500-user high_systime workload on a 80-core x86-64
> system with a 3.9 kernel, the workload itself took about 2 minutes
> to run and the perf.data file had a size of 1108.746 MB. However,
> the post-processing step took more than 10 minutes.
>
> With a gprof-profiled perf binary, the time spent by perf was as
> follows:
>
> % cumulative self self total
> time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
> 96.90 822.10 822.10 192156 0.00 0.00 dsos__find
> 0.81 828.96 6.86 172089958 0.00 0.00 rb_next
> 0.41 832.44 3.48 48539289 0.00 0.00 rb_erase
>
> So 97% (822 seconds) of the time was spent in a single dsos_find()
> function. After analyzing the call-graph data below:
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> 0.00 822.12 192156/192156 map__new [6]
> [7] 96.9 0.00 822.12 192156 vdso__dso_findnew [7]
> 822.10 0.00 192156/192156 dsos__find [8]
> 0.01 0.00 192156/192156 dsos__add [62]
> 0.01 0.00 192156/192366 dso__new [61]
> 0.00 0.00 1/45282525 memdup [31]
> 0.00 0.00 192156/192230 dso__set_long_name [91]
> -----------------------------------------------
> 822.10 0.00 192156/192156 vdso__dso_findnew [7]
> [8] 96.9 822.10 0.00 192156 dsos__find [8]
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> It was found that the vdso__dso_findnew() function failed to locate
> VDSO__MAP_NAME ("[vdso]") in the dso list and have to insert a new
> entry at the end for 192156 times. This problem is due to the fact that
> there are 2 types of name in the dso entry - short name and long name.
> The initial dso__new() adds "[vdso]" to both the short and long names.
> After that, vdso__dso_findnew() modifies the long name to something
> like /tmp/perf-vdso.so-NoXkDj. The dsos__find() function only compares
> the long name. As a result, the same vdso entry is duplicated many
> time in the dso list. This bug increases memory consumption as well
> as slows the symbol processing time to a crawl.
>
> To resolve this problem, the dsos__find() function interface was
> modified to enable searching either the long name or the short
> name. The vdso__dso_findnew() will now search only the short name
> while the other call sites search for the long name as before.
>
> With this change, the cpu time of perf was reduced from 848.38s to
> 15.77s and dsos__find() only accounted for 0.06% of the total time.
>
> 0.06 15.73 0.01 192151 0.00 0.00 dsos__find
Very nice!
I noticed that you used gprof to instrument perf itself on a call graph
level.
Does this method of profiling perf via perf:
perf record -g perf report
perf report
... produce similarly useful call-graph instrumentation for you?
If not or not quite then could you describe the differences? We could use
that to further improve perf call-graph profiling.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-07 7:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-06 13:43 [PATCH] perf: fix symbol processing bug and greatly improve performance Waiman Long
2013-05-07 7:01 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-05-07 14:19 ` Waiman Long
2013-05-07 14:52 ` Waiman Long
2013-05-07 17:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-05-07 9:30 ` Jiri Olsa
2013-05-07 14:40 ` Waiman Long
2013-05-08 15:44 ` Waiman Long
2013-05-09 10:19 ` Jiri Olsa
2013-05-09 12:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-05-09 14:46 ` Waiman Long
2013-05-09 15:05 ` David Ahern
2013-05-09 15:31 ` Waiman Long
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=20130507070127.GA17830@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.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