From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc/stat: Separate out individual irq counts into /proc/stat_irqs
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:02:17 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180419200217.GA4467@avx2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180419124319.8e329eb25234c045bf161cd5@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:43:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:09:29 -0400 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > It was found that reading /proc/stat could be time consuming on
> > systems with a lot of irqs. For example, reading /proc/stat in a
> > certain 2-socket Skylake server took about 4.6ms because it had over
> > 5k irqs. In that particular case, the majority of the CPU cycles for
> > reading /proc/stat was spent in the kstat_irqs() function. Therefore,
> > application performance can be impacted if the application reads
> > /proc/stat rather frequently.
> >
> > The "intr" line within /proc/stat contains a sum total of all the irqs
> > that have happened followed by a list of irq counts for each individual
> > irq number. In many cases, the first number is good enough. The
> > individual irq counts may not provide that much more information.
> >
> > In order to avoid this kind of performance issue, all these individual
> > irq counts are now separated into a new /proc/stat_irqs file. The
> > sum total irq count will stay in /proc/stat and be duplicated in
> > /proc/stat_irqs. Applications that need to look up individual irq counts
> > will now have to look into /proc/stat_irqs instead of /proc/stat.
> >
>
> (cc /proc maintainer)
>
> It's a non-backward-compatible change. For something which has
> existing for so long, it would be a mighty task to demonstrate that no
> existing userspace will be disrupted by this change.
>
> So we need to think again. A new interface which omits the per-IRQ
> stats might be acceptable.
Here is profile of open+read+close /proc/stat
30% is taking mutex only to print "0".
+ 98.80% 0.04% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64 ▒
+ 98.75% 0.10% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] do_syscall_64 ▒
+ 95.56% 0.04% a.out libc-2.25.so [.] __GI___libc_read ◆
+ 95.09% 0.01% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] sys_read ▒
+ 95.04% 0.03% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] vfs_read ▒
+ 94.98% 0.05% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] proc_reg_read ▒
+ 94.98% 0.00% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __vfs_read ▒
+ 94.92% 0.06% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] seq_read ▒
+ 94.52% 3.65% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] show_stat ▒
+ 48.62% 2.59% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] kstat_irqs_usr ▒
+ 33.52% 9.55% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] seq_put_decimal_ull ▒
+ 19.63% 19.59% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] memcpy_erms ▒
+ 17.34% 9.53% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] kstat_irqs ▒
- 15.45% 15.43% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_lock ▒
15.43% __GI___libc_read ▒
entry_SYSCALL_64 ▒
do_syscall_64 ▒
sys_read ▒
vfs_read ▒
__vfs_read ▒
proc_reg_read ▒
- seq_read ▒
- 15.41% show_stat ▒
kstat_irqs_usr ▒
mutex_lock ▒
+ 13.32% 13.27% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock ▒
+ 4.60% 1.35% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] cpumask_next ▒
+ 3.03% 3.03% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __radix_tree_lookup ▒
+ 2.96% 0.08% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] seq_printf ▒
+ 2.92% 0.02% a.out libc-2.25.so [.] __GI___libc_open ▒
+ 2.89% 0.07% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] seq_vprintf ▒
+ 2.81% 0.70% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] vsnprintf ▒
+ 2.66% 2.66% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _find_next_bit ▒
+ 2.42% 1.36% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] num_to_str ▒
+ 2.41% 0.19% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] get_idle_time ▒
+ 2.39% 0.02% a.out [kernel.vmlinux] [k] do_sys_open
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-19 20:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-19 17:09 [PATCH] proc/stat: Separate out individual irq counts into /proc/stat_irqs Waiman Long
2018-04-19 17:38 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-04-19 18:44 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-19 19:43 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-19 19:57 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-19 20:02 ` Alexey Dobriyan [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-04-19 19:08 Alexey Dobriyan
2018-04-19 19:28 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-19 19:55 ` Alexey Dobriyan
[not found] ` <eb7c1569-e445-5cbb-6d10-2694b625232a@redhat.com>
2018-04-19 20:39 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2018-04-19 20:58 ` Waiman Long
2018-04-19 23:23 ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-04-21 20:34 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2018-04-21 20:36 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2018-04-24 5:54 ` David Rientjes
2018-04-24 6:18 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2018-05-02 0:02 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-19 21:05 ` 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=20180419200217.GA4467@avx2 \
--to=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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