Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] perf tool: improves DSO long names lookup speed with rbtree

Waiman Long
2014-09-30T17:38:59Z

On 09/30/2014 12:49 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 11:21 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 04:07:29PM -0400, Waiman Long escreveu:
>>> With workload that spawns and destroys many threads and processes,
>>> it was found that perf-mem could took a long time to post-process
>>> the perf data after the target workload had completed its operation.
>>> The performance bottleneck was found to be the lookup and insertion
>>> of the new DSO structures (thousands of them in this case).
>>>
>>> In a dual-socket Ivy-Bridge E7-4890 v2 machine (30-core, 60-thread),
>>> the perf profile below shows what perf was doing after the profiled
>>> AIM7 shared workload completed:
>>>
>>> - 83.94% perf libc-2.11.3.so [.] __strcmp_sse42
>>> - __strcmp_sse42
>>> - 99.82% map__new
>>> machine__process_mmap_event
>>> perf_session_deliver_event
>>> perf_session__process_event
>>> __perf_session__process_events
>>> cmd_record
>>> cmd_mem
>>> run_builtin
>>> main
>>> __libc_start_main
>>> - 13.17% perf perf [.] __dsos__findnew
>>> __dsos__findnew
>>> map__new
>>> machine__process_mmap_event
>>> perf_session_deliver_event
>>> perf_session__process_event
>>> __perf_session__process_events
>>> cmd_record
>>> cmd_mem
>>> run_builtin
>>> main
>>> __libc_start_main
>>>
>>> So about 97% of CPU times were spent in the map__new() function
>>> trying to insert new DSO entry into the DSO linked list. The whole
>>> post-processing step took about 9 minutes.
>>>
>>> The DSO structures are currently searched linearly. So the total
>>> processing time will be proportional to n^2.
>>>
>>> To overcome this performance problem, the DSO code is modified to
>>> also put the DSO structures in a RB tree sorted by its long name
>>> in additional to being in a simple linked list. With this change,
>>> the processing time will become proportional to n*log(n) which will
>>> be much quicker for large n. However, the short name will still be
>>> searched using the old linear searching method. With that patch
>>> in place, the same perf-mem post-processing step took less than 30
>>> seconds to complete.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hp.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/perf/util/dso.c | 72
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> tools/perf/util/dso.h | 1 +
>>> tools/perf/util/machine.c | 1 +
>>> tools/perf/util/machine.h | 4 ++-
>>> 4 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/dso.c b/tools/perf/util/dso.c
>>> index 901a58f..9a81c03 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/dso.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/dso.c
>>> @@ -653,6 +653,67 @@ struct dso *dso__kernel_findnew(struct machine
>>> *machine, const char *name,
>>> return dso;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Find a matching entry and/or link current entry to RB tree.
>>> + * Either one of the dso or name parameter must be non-NULL or the
>>> + * function will not work.
>>> + */
>>> +static struct dso *dso__findlink_by_longname(struct rb_root *root,
>>> + struct dso *dso, const char *name)
>>> +{
>>> + struct rb_node **p =&root->rb_node;
>>> + struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
>>> + int warned = false;
>>> +
>>> + if (!name)
>>> + name = dso->long_name;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Find node with the matching name
>>> + */
>>> + while (*p) {
>>> + struct dso *this = rb_entry(*p, struct dso, rb_node);
>>> + int rc = strcmp(name, this->long_name);
>>> +
>>> + parent = *p;
>>> + if (rc == 0) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * In case the new DSO is a duplicate of an existing
>>> + * one, print an one-time warning& put the new entry
>>> + * at the end of the list of duplicates.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!dso || (dso == this))
>>> + return this; /* Find matching dso */
>>> + /*
>>> + * The core kernel DSOs may have duplicated long name.
>>> + * (See dso__load_sym()). Don't print warning for them.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!warned&& !strstr(name, "kernel.kallsyms")
>>> + && !strstr(name, "/vmlinux")) {
>>> + pr_warning("Duplicated dso long name: %s\n",
>>> + name);
>>> + warned = true;
>> I still wonder if in this case we should just return, i.e. why would we
>> want to have multiple entries with the same name here? Anyway, I guess
>> it doesn't hurt, right?
>>
>> Something to be further investigated to find a better solution, but I
>> guess that the patch as-is now should provide that speedup without
>> introducing any new oddities. Will apply.
>
> If I don't add the kernel name check, I will get a warning every time
> I run mem recording with the workloads that I am using. So it is
> happening in the current code. I think the short name may be
> different. I will do more test to find out. If that is the case, an
> alternative is to do a short name comparison if the long name match.
>

The short names are indeed different when the long names match. I have
just sent out the v6 patch with the change. Hopefully that will address
your remaining concern about this patch.

-Longman