|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
|| ||Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org> |
|| ||Re: [RFD] Future tracing/instrumentation directions |
|| ||Fri, 21 May 2010 19:49:45 +0200|
|| ||LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec-AT-gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-lst.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-AT-efficios.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf-AT-cn.fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs-AT-cn.fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg-AT-intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt-AT-hitachi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme-AT-infradead.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi-AT-gmail.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro-AT-jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi-AT-firstfloor.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat-AT-redhat.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin-AT-intel.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov-AT-gmail.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault-AT-gmx.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus-AT-samba.org>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake-AT-dcl.info.waseda|
|| ||Article, Thread
* Steven Rostedt <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 11:31 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > More than a year and a half ago (September 2008), at
> > > Linux Plumbers, we had a meeting with several kernel
> > > developers to come up with a unified ring buffer. A
> > > generic ring buffer in the kernel that any subsystem
> > > could use. After coming up with a set of requirements, I
> > > worked on implementing it. One of the requirements was
> > > to start off simple and work to become a more complete
> > > buffering system.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > The thing is, in tracing land and more broadly in
> > instrumentation land we have _much_ more earthly problems
> > these days:
> > - Lets face it, performance of the ring-buffer sucks, in
> > a big way. I've recently benchmarked it and it takes
> > hundreds of instructions to trace a single event.
> > Puh-lease ...
Yeah, we suck :-/
> Hmm, what were the timings? I just ran the
> ring_buffer_benchmark module. It's in mainline, so
> anyone could do the same. [...]
i tested it with perf stat and got 700+ instructions for
the sched:sched_wakeup tracepoint.
That's without extracting the trace - that would add
another significant chunk of overhead.
Btw., it's not just ftrace, on the perf side i see big
tracing overhead as well, it's even worse than this
because we layer it on each other and because perf does a
few stupid things (that need fixing).
> [...] Remember to disable KERNEL_DEBUG because things
> like lockdep can have a significant impact on it.
I had lockdep off.
> Note, instructions themselves are not that bad, but what
> those instructions do count a lot more. I avoid all lock
> functions and memory barriers which cause the code to be
> a little bigger. But a single cmpxchg can take much more
> time than a lot of other instructions put together.
It's bad cycle-wise as well and obviously running through
700 instructions is bad no matter what.
> On this machine:
> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
> It's a 2x2 (4 cores)
> With running:
> # modprobe ring_buffer_benchmark producer_fifo=10
> # sleep 30
> # cat /debug/tracing/trace
> <...>-2636  761.969850: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Starting ring buffer
> <...>-2636  771.910121: ring_buffer_producer_thread: End ring buffer hammer
> <...>-2636  771.910172: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Running Consumer at nice:
> <...>-2636  771.910172: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Running Producer at
> <...>-2636  771.910173: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Time: 9965321
> <...>-2636  771.910173: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Overruns: 0
> <...>-2636  771.910174: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Read: 76580325 (by
> <...>-2636  771.910175: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Entries: 75
> <...>-2636  771.910175: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Total: 76580400
> <...>-2636  771.910175: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Missed: 0
> <...>-2636  771.910176: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Hit: 76580400
> <...>-2636  771.910176: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Entries per millisec:
> <...>-2636  771.910176: ring_buffer_producer_thread: 130 ns per entry
> <...>-2636  771.910177: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Sleeping for 10 secs
> <...>-2636  781.884686: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Starting ring buffer
> <...>-2636  790.862392: ring_buffer_producer_thread: End ring buffer hammer
> <...>-2636  790.897399: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Running Consumer at nice:
> <...>-2636  790.897400: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Running Producer at
> <...>-2636  790.897401: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Time: 9000321
> <...>-2636  790.897401: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Overruns: 26581200
> <...>-2636  790.897402: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Read: 6767200 (by
> <...>-2636  790.897403: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Entries: 0
> <...>-2636  790.897403: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Total: 33348400
> <...>-2636  790.897403: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Missed: 0
> <...>-2636  790.897404: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Hit: 33348400
> <...>-2636  790.897404: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Entries per millisec:
> <...>-2636  790.897405: ring_buffer_producer_thread: 269 ns per entry
> While having the reader read by pages (splice mode) a
> write takes 130ns per entry. Not that bad.
I tried a simple loop of:
for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
with kernel/timer.c's getppid syscall having this:
and then used:
echo 1 > /debug/tracing/events/sched/sched_wakeup/enable
echo sched_switch > /debug/tracing/current_tracer
perf stat --repeat 10 -e instructions -e cycles ./getppid-1m
with the tracepoint off i got:
# perf stat -B --repeat 10 -e instructions -e cycles ./getppid-1m
Performance counter stats for './getppid-1m' (10 runs):
89.700.970 instructions # 0,614 IPC ( +- 0,146% )
146.204.088 cycles ( +- 1,160% )
0,046142868 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1,200% )
with it on i got:
# perf stat -B --repeat 10 -e instructions -e cycles ./getppid-1m
Performance counter stats for './getppid-1m' (10 runs):
1.241.321.592 instructions # 1,617 IPC ( +- 0,054% )
767.890.685 cycles ( +- 1,298% )
0,241048084 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1,288% )
i.e. from 89 instructions to 1241 instructions. From 146
cycles to 767 cycles.
And that's just the recording - doesnt count the
recovering of the trace. (which can argued to be a
slowpath in many tracing workflows when buffers are big
Nehalem box. Can send the config.
> But when the reader is reading each event, (I'm assuming
> we get some cache line bouncing here, it is still
> lockless), a write takes 269ns.
That would be like 800 cycles? So it's roughly the same
ballpark figure as mine - we suck. (this is a 3GHz box)
> Note, the reader is an aggressive reader. That is, it
> goes into a strong loop and just reads as fast as it
> can. Which would cause cache line bouncing.
> When I disable the reader and just measure what a write
> # rmmod ring_buffer_benchmark
> # modprobe ring_buffer_benchmark disable_reader=1 producer_fifo=10
> # sleep 30
> # cat /debug/tracing/trace
> <...>-2649  1141.981639: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Starting ring buffer
> <...>-2649  1151.950840: ring_buffer_producer_thread: End ring buffer hammer
> <...>-2649  1151.950841: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Running Producer at
> <...>-2649  1151.950842: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Time: 9994238
> <...>-2649  1151.950842: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Overruns: 90635670
> <...>-2649  1151.950843: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Read: (reader
> <...>-2649  1151.950843: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Entries: 62480
> <...>-2649  1151.950844: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Total: 90698150
> <...>-2649  1151.950844: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Missed: 0
> <...>-2649  1151.950844: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Hit: 90698150
> <...>-2649  1151.950845: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Entries per millisec:
> <...>-2649  1151.950845: ring_buffer_producer_thread: 110 ns per entry
> <...>-2649  1151.950846: ring_buffer_producer_thread: Sleeping for 10 secs
> It takes just a 110ns.
I dont seem to be able to get such low numbers - but even
~250 instructions are pretty expensive.
> Lets now use perf to see what is happening:
> # perf record -a -c10000 -f
> (wait 30 secs)
> # perf report
> no symbols found in /usr/sbin/irqbalance, maybe install a debug package?
> # Samples: 1995496
> # Overhead Command Shared Object
> # ........ ............... ................................................................
> 23.80% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 14.83% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 13.20% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 12.84% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 9.27% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 9.19% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 5.24% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 3.11% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 2.88% rb_producer [ring_buffer_benchmark]
> 2.53% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 0.39% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 0.34% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 0.18% rb_producer [kernel.kallsyms]
> 0.14% swapper [kernel.kallsyms]
> Now that the sched_clock is %23.8 percent, it doesn't
> look as bad.
> rb_reserve_next_event is 14.83,
> ring_buffer_unlock_commit is 13.20,
> ring_buffer_lock_reserve is 12.84, rb_end_commit is
> 9.27, __rb_reserve_next is 8.18, trace_clock_local is
> 5.24 (which only disables preemption and calls
> sched_clock), ring_buffer_event_data is 3.11 which only
> returns a pointer on a structure (once a event).
> ring_buffer_benchmark_init is the benchmark code itself,
> and trace_recursive_unlock is the code you asked me to
> add to check for cases where the tracer could have
> recursed itself.
> 14.83 + 13.20 + 9.27 + 8.18 + 5.24 + 3.11 = 53.83%
> Considering that the system is basically idle except for
> this benchmark, that makes sense to have it that high.
> We need to compare it. The sched_clock() takes up 1/3 of
> the entire trace event.
Should be better on my box, which has a usable TSC and my
sched_clock() is in essence an RDTSC.
> > - It has grown a lot of slack. It's complex and hard to
> > read.
> I admit, that it got over designed, and I'm all for
> replacing it. We were all involved in the initial
> design, [...]
Yes, by implication i definitely suck too, no argument
about that :-)
> [...] and I posted several versions of RFC when I
> created it. But I admit, it became complex, and now that
> we know what we want, we can take a step back and
> redesign a new one from scratch.
> But until we do so, I'm continuing to support the
> current one, and adding small updates when needed.
> > - Over the last year or so the majority of bleeding-edge
> > tracing developers have gradually migrated over to perf
> > and 'perf trace' / 'perf probe' in particular. As far
> > as the past two merge windows go they are
> > out-developing the old ftrace UIs by a ratio of 4:1.
> Of course a new project will be in a high state of flux.
> I'm quite satisfied with the interface with ftrace and
> did not feel that it needed changing.
> > So this angle is becoming a prime thing to improve and
> > users and developers are hurting from the ftrace/perf
> > duality.
> I agree.
> > - [ While it's still a long way off, if this trend continues
> > we eventually might even be able to get rid of the
> > /debug/tracing/ temporary debug API and get rid of
> > the ugly in-kernel pretty-printing bits. This is
> > good: it may make Andrew very happy for a change ;-)
> So how do you plan on getting rid of the in-kernel
> pretty-printing bits and keeping the trace_dump_on_oops?
> There's a strong dependency between those two.
One approach would be to add a library that can turn the
specification into a pretty-print output - say in
tools/perf/lib/printlib/ (or lib/printlib/), and co-build
it both in perf and in the kernel.
That way we get most of the pretty-printing functionality
at oops (or critical event) time, but have it in a
> > The main detail here to be careful of is that lots of
> > people are fond of the simplicity of the
> > /debug/tracing/ debug UI, so when we replace it we
> > want to do it by keeping that simple workflow (or
> > best by making it even simpler). I have a few ideas
> > how to do this.
> Note, I still would not want to remove the /debug
> interface. It is a debug interface anyway. Having both a
> syscall access the functionality of the code and having
> a debug interface access it very trivial. This could
> also be a way we can debug the tool too.
> We can officially support only the tool side, but why
> throw away the baby with the bath water?
As long as we declare it to go away the moment we have
something equivalent or better on the 'perf ftrace' /
'ftrace' tool side, sure.
I worry about what Andrew mentioned a few months (years?)
ago: unintentional ABI tool bindings to /debug/tracing,
just due to us offering it.
We want to gravitate towards offering one superb solution
for all the tracing goodies we've built and are going to
> > There's also the detail that in some cases we want to
> > print events in the kernel in a human readable way:
> > for example EDAC/MCE and other critical events,
> > trace-on-oops, etc. This too can be solved. ]
> But if the code for trace-on-oops is there, then the
> pretty print code is also there.
Not if we share it with the user-space tool (in a generic
way) and drive it from the user-space side, not the kernel
The executable instructions will still be there in the
kernel, for those relatively rare cases that need it (lets
face it, the usage proportion between ordinary tracing and
dump-on-oops is probably 1:100 or worse).
> > Regarding performance and complexity, which is our
> > main worry atm, fortunately there's work going on in
> > that direction - please see PeterZ's recent string of
> > patches on lkml:
> > 4f41c01: perf/ftrace: Optimize perf/tracepoint interaction for single events
> > a19d35c: perf: Optimize buffer placement by allocating buffers NUMA aware
> > ef60777: perf: Optimize the perf_output() path by removing IRQ-disables
> > fa58815: perf: Optimize the hotpath by converting the perf output buffer to local_t
> > 6d1acfd: perf: Optimize perf_output_*() by avoiding local_xchg()
> Yes, I saw these, and it helps a little, but still not everything is
Most definitely. We still suck :-)
> > And it may sound harsh but at this stage i'm
> > personally not at all interested in big design talk.
> Rewriting ftrace on top of perf is a big design change.
Yeah, and a pretty rewarding one.
> > This isnt rocket science, we have developers and users
> > and we know what they are doing and we know what we
> > need to do: we need to improve our crap and we need to
> > reduce complexity. Less is more.
> > So i'd like to see iterative, useful action first, and
> > i am somewhat sceptical about yet another grand
> > tracing design trying to match 100 requirements.
> Here's a few things that I find required:
> The ability to use splice. You keep telling me this is
> not important, but splice is magnitudes faster than
> mmaping into userspace and then copying into a file.
That claim i find hard to believe, have you got the
numbers for that?
It's faster for sure if implemented correctly, but i'd be
surprised if it made more than 20% of a difference to the
total tracing overhead.
> [...] If the splice removes the extra copy as we are
> working on, it will get even faster. It also makes
> writing over the network much easier. Which trace-cmd
> does, and it took me half a day to make it do so.
> We also need a way to easily read the buffer from the
> kernel. This is for trace-on-oops.
> Overwrite mode must also be supported. I know that Peter
> thinks its silly to do this and have it write to a file,
> but I find it helpful to do so. But fine, I can live
> without overwrite to a file, if no one else cares. But
> overwrite mode itself must work for trace-on-oops.
We can do overwrite mode, it doesnt look like a central
I'm sure we'll find a dozen other things missing as well.
We have to start looking.
> We need a way to start and stop tracing from the kernel
> and userspace. Again, for trace-on-oops. When a bug is
> hit, we need a way to stop it. We also must have a way
> to easily start it again from userspace.
> A simple on/off switch. This is something that you and
> Thomas hammered into me which was the creation of
> The above can be done, but lets not just hack the
> changes in. Lets really look at a proper design.
This kind of capability would be met by persistent events
attached to struct user.
We have to start looking and doing.
> > Steve, Mathieu, if you are interested please help out
> > Peter with the performance and simplification work.
> > The last thing we need is yet another
> > replace-everything event.
> But that is what you are asking to happen to ftrace.
We've got two ring-buffer implementations right now, one
has to be replaced.
It doesnt mean we should disrupt _two_ implementations and
put in a third one, unless there are strong technical
reasons for doing so.
> > If we really want to create a new ring-buffer
> > abstraction i'd suggest we start with Peter's, it has
> > a quite sane design and stayed simple and flexible -
> > if then it could be factored out a bit.
> I'm sorry, but it is very coupled with perf. [...]
Then decouple it.
> [...] It is simple and flexible with what perf does
> today, but not what ftrace does today, or to make perf
> do what ftrace does.
Why? Neither overwrite mode, nor splice support, nor
persistent buffering looks hard at all.
> > Here are more bits of what i see as the 'action' going
> > forward, in no particular order:
> > 1) Push the /debug/tracing/events/ event description
> > into sysfs, as per this thread on lkml:
> > [RFC][PATCH v2 06/11] perf: core, export pmus via sysfs
> > http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/ab9aa0750...
> > I.e. one more step towards integrating ftrace into perf.
> We could do something like this, but it is not as
> trivial as it may seem.
> > 2) Use 1) to unify the perf events and the ftrace
> > ring-buffer. This, as things are standing is
> > best done by factoring out Peter's ring-buffer
> > in kernel/perf_event.c. It's properly abstracted
> > and it _far_ simpler than kernel/tracing/ring_buffer.c,
> > which has become a monstrosity.
> Sure, my code has become quite complex, I'll admit that.
> I'm for refactoring. I really don't care what code is
> used as long as I still have the requirements that make
> ftrace useful for me and several others.
> And yes, any ring buffer needs to be factored out to a
> defined interface. The current ring buffer in perf is
> very coupled with the perf design. The event code
> written to perf in include/trace/ftrace.h is still quite
> a hack.
Then lets make it less of a hack.
> > (but i'm open to other simplifications as well)
> > 3) Add the function-tracer and function-graph tracer
> > as an event and integrate it into perf.
> Here's something that I think perf needs to do. It needs
> to become a bit more modulized, and not absorb
> everything into perf instead of having things use just a
> part of perf. Like the breakpoint code requires full
> perf to be done, and x86 has PERF_EVENTS permanently on.
> Which is really a PITA.
the Kconfig rule should be fixed so that PERF_EVENTS can
be disabled on EMBEDDED.
On non-embedded, why is it a PITA?
> As I designed ftrace from day one, I tried to make it
> modular. Thus, the function trace
> (kernel/trace/ftrace.c) has always been a separate
> entity from ftrace itself. Heck, LTTng uses it. It would
> be actually trivial to implement the function tracer in
> perf today. Just register a function you want called at
> every function event and start running.
Here i disagree: the last thing Linux needs is various
fragmented pieces of instrumentation.
We try hard with perf to unify. It takes time but has to
> I need to abstract out the "what function to call bit"
> but that's about it.
> > This will live-test the efficiency of the unification
> > and brings over the last big ftrace plugin to perf.
> > 4) Gradually convert/port/migrate all the remaining
> > plugins over as well. We need to do this very gently
> > because there are users - but stop piling new
> > functionality on to the old ftrace side. This usually
> > involves:
> I have not been piling functionality into the ftrace
> side, as you stated at the beginning of the email, that
> the development has been quite slow. Yes, I've been
> still working on things, but I would say it is a far cry
> from "piling".
Sorry, that was a poor choice of a word. We did manage to
pile quite a bit of crap into the tracing hotpath though.
> I did add some simple features, like the "lost events"
> to the ring buffer, but that code can be looked at for
> ideas for the future. It does not make merging any more
> difficult than it already is.
> Fine, I'll stop some of the code I was going to work on
> (multiple buffers for ftrace, event triggers,
> configuring events to stop the tracer (like for
> different kinds of BUG() and WARN_ON()), etc).
I think those are excellent features that seem to fit
rather well into the persisent buffering concept, what do
Via the 'ftrace' tool we could as a first step extend
tracing sessions to per user. We could also bring the
start/stop/dont-worry-about-where-the-trace-is workflow to
perf trace that way.
> > - Conversion of an explicit tracing callback to
> > TRACE_EVENT (for example in the case of mmiotrace),
> > while keeping all tool functionality.
> Not sure what this is.
We have a lot of explicit ad-hoc callbacks, hooks,
notifiers, function pointers in the kernel, which feed
some sort of event logging mechanism. These should be
unified while keeping their current functionality - but
exposing the callback as an event source as well. This
enriches total pool of events.
For example the mmiotrace tracepoints.
> > - Migrate any 'special' ftrace feature to perf
> > capabilities so that it's available via the
> > syscall interface as well. (for example
> > 'latency maximum tracking' is something that we
> > probably want to do with kernel-side help - we
> > probably dont want to implement it via tracing
> > everything all the time and finding the maximum
> > based on terabytes of data.)
> > (And there are other complications here too, but you
> > get the idea.)
> Yes, the latency tracers are special, and I treat them
> special in ftrace. They can be redesigned to keep their
> current functionality. That needed to be done anyway.
> > All in one, i think we can reuse more than 50% of all
> > current ftrace code (possibly up to 70-80%) - and we
> > are already reusing bits of it.
> Ingo, as we have had this conversation, I don't know if
> you realized that I agreed to merge ftrace to perf.
> There's just some functionality about ftrace I really
> want to keep, which does include accessing via /debugfs,
> pretty-print (which is needed by trace-on-oops) and
Ok, good :-)
to post comments)