From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq counts latency
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:07:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2ef7231-fe1f-9463-0b06-e88f990aa865@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190107155840.GY6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
On 01/07/2019 10:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:12:58AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Reading /proc/stat can be slow especially if there are many irqs and on
>> systems with many CPUs as summation of all the percpu counts for each
>> of the irqs is required. On some newer systems, there can be more than
>> 1000 irqs per socket.
>>
>> Applications that need to read /proc/stat many times per seconds will
>> easily hit a bottleneck. In reality, the irq counts are seldom looked
>> at. Even those applications that read them don't really need up-to-date
>> information. One way to reduce the performance impact of irq counts
>> computation is to do it less frequently.
>>
>> A new "fs/proc-stat-irqs-latency-ms" sysctl parameter is now added to
> No. No, no, no, no, no. No.
>
> Stop adding new sysctls for this kind of thing. It's just a way to shift
> blame from us (who allegedly know what we're doing) to the sysadmin
> (who probably has better things to be doing than keeping up with the
> intricacies of development of every single piece of software running on
> their system).
>
> Let's figure out what this _should_ be. As a strawman, I propose we
> update these stats once a second. That's easy to document and understand.
I am fine with having a fixed value (like 1s) for reporting purpose. It
is just people may have many different opinions on what the right value
should be. That is why I opt for flexibility in the initial patch.
>
>> @@ -98,7 +105,48 @@ static u64 compute_stat_irqs_sum(void)
>> static void show_stat_irqs(struct seq_file *p)
>> {
>> int i;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL
>> + static char *irqs_buf; /* Buffer for irqs values */
>> + static int buflen;
>> + static unsigned long last_jiffies; /* Last buffer update jiffies */
>> + static DEFINE_MUTEX(irqs_mutex);
>> + unsigned int latency = proc_stat_irqs_latency_ms;
>> +
>> + if (latency) {
>> + char *ptr;
>> +
>> + latency = _msecs_to_jiffies(latency);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&irqs_mutex);
>> + if (irqs_buf && time_before(jiffies, last_jiffies + latency))
>> + goto print_out;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Each irq value may require up to 11 bytes.
>> + */
>> + if (!irqs_buf) {
>> + irqs_buf = kmalloc(nr_irqs * 11 + 32,
>> + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
> Why are you caching the _output_ of calling sprintf(), rather than caching the
> values of each interrupt?
>
It is just faster to dump the whole string buffer than redoing the
number formatting each time when the values don't change. I can cache
the individual sums instead if it is the preferred by most.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-07 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-07 15:12 [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance overhead Waiman Long
2019-01-07 15:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] /proc/stat: Extract irqs counting code into show_stat_irqs() Waiman Long
2019-01-07 21:42 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-07 15:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq counts latency Waiman Long
2019-01-07 15:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-07 16:07 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-01-07 16:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-07 16:19 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-07 16:33 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-01-07 16:59 ` Waiman Long
[not found] ` <20190118084456.GA10690@shao2-debian>
2019-01-21 20:02 ` [LKP] [/proc/stat] 3047027b34: reaim.jobs_per_min -4.8% regression Kees Cook
2019-01-21 21:25 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-01-07 22:32 ` [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance overhead Dave Chinner
2019-01-07 22:41 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-01-07 23:49 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-01-07 22:41 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 2:04 ` Dave Chinner
2019-01-08 16:11 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-08 17:05 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 17:32 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 16:58 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 22:27 ` Dave Chinner
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=c2ef7231-fe1f-9463-0b06-e88f990aa865@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).