Re: [PATCH 0/2] psi: enhance psi with the help of ebpf

[Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:48 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:22:24AM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:11 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:17:59AM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:31 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > With the newly added facility,  we can know when these events occur
> > and how long each event takes.
> > Then we can use these datas to generate a Latency Heat Map[1] and to
> > compare whether these latencies match with the application latencies
> > recoreded in its log - for example the slow query log in mysql. If the
> > refault latencies match with the slow query log, then these slow
> > queries are caused by these workingset refault.  If the refault
> > latencies don't match with slow query log, IOW much smaller than the
> > slow query log, then  the slow query log isn't caused by the
> > workingset refault.
>
> Okay, you want to use it much finer-grained to understand individual
> end-to-end latencies for your services, rather than "the system is
> melting down and I want to know why." That sounds valid to me.
>

Right, individual end-to-end latencies are very important for the
latency sensitive services.

> > > > > Can you elaborate a bit how you are using this information? It's not
> > > > > quite clear to me from the example in patch #2.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > From the traced data in patch #2, we can find that the high latencies
> > > > of user tasks are always type 7 of memstall , which is
> > > > MEMSTALL_WORKINGSET_THRASHING,  and then we should look into the
> > > > details of wokingset of the user tasks and think about how to improve
> > > > it - for example, by reducing the workingset.
> > >
> > > That's an analyses we run frequently as well: we see high pressure,
> > > and then correlate it with the events.
> > >
> > > High rate of refaults? The workingset is too big.
> > >
> > > High rate of compaction work? Somebody is asking for higher order
> > > pages under load; check THP events next.
> > >
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > This works fairly reliably. I'm curious what the extra per-event
> > > latency breakdown would add and where it would be helpful.
> > >
> > > I'm not really opposed to your patches it if it is, I just don't see
> > > the usecase right now.
> > >
> >
> > As I explained above, the rate of these events can't give us a full
> > view of the memory pressure. High memory pressure may not caused by
> > high rate of vmstat events, while it can be caused by low rate of
> > events but with high latencies.  Latencies are the application really
> > concerns, that's why PSI is very useful for us.
> >
> > Furthermore, there're some events are not recored in vmstat. e.g.
> >
> > typf of memstall                                           vmstat event
> >
> > MEMSTALL_KSWAPD                                pageoutrun, {pgscan,
> > pgsteal}_kswapd
> > MEMSTALL_RECLAIM_DIRECT                {pgscan,steal}_direct
> > MEMSTALL_RECLAIM_MEMCG                /* no event */
> > MEMSTALL_RECLAIM_HIGH                     /* no event */
> > MEMSTALL_KCOMPACTD                         compact_daemon_wake
> > MEMSTALL_COMPACT                              compact_{stall, fail, success}
> > MEMSTALL_WORKINGSET_REFAULT     workingset_refault
> > MEMSTALL_WORKINGSET_THRASH      /* no event */
> > MEMSTALL_MEMDELAY                           /* no event */
> > MEMSTALL_SWAPIO                                 pswpin
> >
> > After we add these types of memstall, we don't need to add these
> > missed events one by one.
>
> I'm a bit concerned about the maintainability of these things. It
> makes moving code around harder, and it forces somebody who has no
> interest in this debugging facility to thing about the categories.
>
> And naming them is hard even for somebody who does care. I'm not a fan
> of MEMSTALL_MEMDELAY, for example because it's way too
> non-descript. The distinction between MEMSTALL_WORKINGSET_REFAULT and
> MEMSTALL_WORKINGSET_THRASH is dubious as well.
>

Agree with you that the naming is not good.

> These are recipes for bit rot and making the code harder to hack on.
>
> I see two options to do this better: One is to use stack traces as
> identifiers instead of a made-up type. The other is to use the calling
> function as the id (see how kmalloc_track_caller() utilizes _RET_IP_).
>
> bpftrace can use the stack as a map key. So this should already work
> without any kernel modifications, using @start[tid, kstack]?
>

If we don't make any kernel modifications, it is not easy to get
whehter the psi_memstall_{enter, leave} is nested or not.
The nested psi_memstall_{enter, leave} may make some noises.
Seems the first option is better. With _RET_IP_ we can also get the caller.
So how about adding tracepoints for psi_memstall_{enter, leave} as bellow ?

@@ -904,7 +904,7 @@ void psi_memstall_enter(unsigned long *flags, enum
memstall_types type)
          if (*flags)
                return;

 +         trace_psi_memstall_enter(_RET_IP_);

@@ -944,7 +943,7 @@ void psi_memstall_leave(unsigned long *flags, enum
memstall_types type)
        if (*flags)
                return;

+       trace_psi_memstall_leave(_RET_IP_);

Thanks
Yafang