[PATCH v3 0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

[PATCH v3 0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

[Slavomir Kaslev]

This patchset optimizes how pid filters are expressed and makes it less likely
that we overflow ftrace filters' size limit of one page.

Changes since v2:

Append exclude rules with &&

Changes since v1:

Add missing tags
Fix append_filter_pid_range() callers to pass valid range as [min,max]


Slavomir Kaslev (2):
  trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed
  trace-cmd: Add --no-filter option to not filter recording processes

 tracecmd/trace-record.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 tracecmd/trace-usage.c  |   1 +
 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

-- 
2.19.1

[PATCH v3 1/2] trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed

[Slavomir Kaslev]

Express pid filters as allowed/disallowed filter ranges

  (pid>=100&&pid<=103)

instead of specifying them per pid

  (pid==100||pid==101||pid==102||pid==103)

This makes the size of the resulting filter smaller (and faster) and avoids
overflowing the filter size limit of one page which we can hit on bigger
machines (say >160 CPUs).

Signed-off-by: Slavomir Kaslev <kaslevs@vmware.com>
Reported-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
 tracecmd/trace-record.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-record.c b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
index 76ca92d..dae0396 100644
--- a/tracecmd/trace-record.c
+++ b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
@@ -950,10 +950,63 @@ static void update_ftrace_pids(int reset)
 static void update_event_filters(struct buffer_instance *instance);
 static void update_pid_event_filters(struct buffer_instance *instance);
 
+static void append_filter_pid_range(char **filter, int *curr_len,
+				    const char *field,
+				    int start_pid, int end_pid, bool exclude)
+{
+	const char *op = "", *op1, *op2, *op3;
+	int len;
+
+	if (*filter && **filter)
+		op = exclude ? "&&" : "||";
+
+	/* Handle thus case explicitly so that we get `pid==3` instead of
+	 * `pid>=3&&pid<=3` for singleton ranges
+	 */
+	if (start_pid == end_pid) {
+#define FMT	"%s(%s%s%d)"
+		len = snprintf(NULL, 0, FMT, op,
+			       field, exclude ? "!=" : "==", start_pid);
+		*filter = realloc(*filter, *curr_len + len + 1);
+		if (!*filter)
+			die("realloc");
+
+		len = snprintf(*filter + *curr_len, len + 1, FMT, op,
+			       field, exclude ? "!=" : "==", start_pid);
+		*curr_len += len;
+
+		return;
+#undef FMT
+	}
+
+	if (exclude) {
+		op1 = "<";
+		op2 = "||";
+		op3 = ">";
+	} else {
+		op1 = ">=";
+		op2 = "&&";
+		op3 = "<=";
+	}
+
+#define FMT	"%s(%s%s%d%s%s%s%d)"
+	len = snprintf(NULL, 0, FMT, op,
+		       field, op1, start_pid, op2,
+		       field, op3, end_pid);
+	*filter = realloc(*filter, *curr_len + len + 1);
+	if (!*filter)
+		die("realloc");
+
+	len = snprintf(*filter + *curr_len, len + 1, FMT, op,
+		       field, op1, start_pid, op2,
+		       field, op3, end_pid);
+	*curr_len += len;
+}
+
 /**
  * make_pid_filter - create a filter string to all pids against @field
  * @curr_filter: Append to a previous filter (may realloc). Can be NULL
- * @field: The fild to compare the pids against
+ * @field: The field to compare the pids against
  *
  * Creates a new string or appends to an existing one if @curr_filter
  * is not NULL. The new string will contain a filter with all pids
@@ -963,54 +1016,44 @@ static void update_pid_event_filters(struct buffer_instance *instance);
  */
 static char *make_pid_filter(char *curr_filter, const char *field)
 {
+	int curr_len = 0, last_exclude = -1;
+	int start_pid = -1, last_pid = -1;
+	char *filter = NULL, *save;
 	struct filter_pids *p;
-	char *filter;
-	char *orit;
-	char *match;
-	char *str;
-	int curr_len = 0;
-	int len;
 
 	/* Use the new method if possible */
 	if (have_set_event_pid)
 		return NULL;
 
-	len = len_filter_pids + (strlen(field) + strlen("(==)||")) * nr_filter_pids;
-
-	if (curr_filter) {
-		curr_len = strlen(curr_filter);
-		filter = realloc(curr_filter, curr_len + len + strlen("(&&())"));
-		if (!filter)
-			die("realloc");
-		memmove(filter+1, curr_filter, curr_len);
-		filter[0] = '(';
-		strcat(filter, ")&&(");
-		curr_len = strlen(filter);
-	} else
-		filter = malloc(len);
-	if (!filter)
-		die("Failed to allocate pid filter");
-
-	/* Last '||' that is not used will cover the \0 */
-	str = filter + curr_len;
+	if (!filter_pids)
+		return curr_filter;
 
 	for (p = filter_pids; p; p = p->next) {
-		if (p->exclude) {
-			match = "!=";
-			orit = "&&";
-		} else {
-			match = "==";
-			orit = "||";
+		/* PIDs are inserted in `filter_pids` from the front and that's
+		 * why we expect them in descending order here.
+		 */
+		if (p->pid == last_pid - 1 && p->exclude == last_exclude) {
+			last_pid = p->pid;
+			continue;
 		}
-		if (p == filter_pids)
-			orit = "";
 
-		len = sprintf(str, "%s(%s%s%d)", orit, field, match, p->pid);
-		str += len;
+		if (start_pid != -1)
+			append_filter_pid_range(&filter, &curr_len, field,
+						last_pid, start_pid,
+						last_exclude);
+
+		start_pid = last_pid = p->pid;
+		last_exclude = p->exclude;
+
 	}
+	append_filter_pid_range(&filter, &curr_len, field,
+				last_pid, start_pid, last_exclude);
 
-	if (curr_len)
-		sprintf(str, ")");
+	if (curr_filter) {
+		save = filter;
+		asprintf(&filter, "(%s)&&(%s)", curr_filter, filter);
+		free(save);
+	}
 
 	return filter;
 }
-- 
2.19.1

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:00:15 +0300
Slavomir Kaslev <kaslevs@vmware.com> wrote:

>  static char *make_pid_filter(char *curr_filter, const char *field)
>  {
> +	int curr_len = 0, last_exclude = -1;

Small nit. Usually when adding multiple variables on one line like
this, the variables should be related. Because curr_len and
last_exclude are not related, it is best to keep them separate.

> +	int start_pid = -1, last_pid = -1;

start_pid and last_pid are fine on the same line or separate.

> +	char *filter = NULL, *save;


Note, It's better to keep variables separate. It makes it easier to see
them and also when code changes and you get the "variable x is not
used" warnings from gcc, it's easier to remove them. In emacs it brings
you to the warning and places the cursor on the problem line. Then a
simple "delete line" works well.

save could also be moved below.

>  	struct filter_pids *p;
> -	char *filter;
> -	char *orit;
> -	char *match;
> -	char *str;
> -	int curr_len = 0;
> -	int len;
>  
>  	/* Use the new method if possible */
>  	if (have_set_event_pid)
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	len = len_filter_pids + (strlen(field) + strlen("(==)||")) * nr_filter_pids;
> -
> -	if (curr_filter) {
> -		curr_len = strlen(curr_filter);
> -		filter = realloc(curr_filter, curr_len + len + strlen("(&&())"));
> -		if (!filter)
> -			die("realloc");
> -		memmove(filter+1, curr_filter, curr_len);
> -		filter[0] = '(';
> -		strcat(filter, ")&&(");
> -		curr_len = strlen(filter);
> -	} else
> -		filter = malloc(len);
> -	if (!filter)
> -		die("Failed to allocate pid filter");
> -
> -	/* Last '||' that is not used will cover the \0 */
> -	str = filter + curr_len;
> +	if (!filter_pids)
> +		return curr_filter;
>  
>  	for (p = filter_pids; p; p = p->next) {
> -		if (p->exclude) {
> -			match = "!=";
> -			orit = "&&";
> -		} else {
> -			match = "==";
> -			orit = "||";
> +		/* PIDs are inserted in `filter_pids` from the front and that's

Comment notation should be:

		/*
		 * PIDs are inserted in ...

Only the Networking folks are allowed to do it that way in the
kernel ;-)

> +		 * why we expect them in descending order here.
> +		 */
> +		if (p->pid == last_pid - 1 && p->exclude == last_exclude) {
> +			last_pid = p->pid;
> +			continue;
>  		}
> -		if (p == filter_pids)
> -			orit = "";
>  
> -		len = sprintf(str, "%s(%s%s%d)", orit, field, match, p->pid);
> -		str += len;
> +		if (start_pid != -1)
> +			append_filter_pid_range(&filter, &curr_len, field,
> +						last_pid, start_pid,
> +						last_exclude);
> +
> +		start_pid = last_pid = p->pid;
> +		last_exclude = p->exclude;
> +
>  	}
> +	append_filter_pid_range(&filter, &curr_len, field,
> +				last_pid, start_pid, last_exclude);
>  
> -	if (curr_len)
> -		sprintf(str, ")");
> +	if (curr_filter) {

As save is only used here, we could have:

		char *save = filter;

> +		save = filter;
> +		asprintf(&filter, "(%s)&&(%s)", curr_filter, filter);
> +		free(save);
> +	}
>  
>  	return filter;
>  }

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed

[Slavomir Kaslev]

On Tue, 2019-04-16 at 17:48 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:00:15 +0300
> Slavomir Kaslev <kaslevs@vmware.com> wrote:
> 
> >  static char *make_pid_filter(char *curr_filter, const char *field)
> >  {
> > +	int curr_len = 0, last_exclude = -1;
> 
> Small nit. Usually when adding multiple variables on one line like
> this, the variables should be related. Because curr_len and
> last_exclude are not related, it is best to keep them separate.

Sent v4 addressing those and added a section about --no-filter to
trace-cmd record's man page.

Cheers,

-- Slavi

[PATCH v3 2/2] trace-cmd: Add --no-filter option to not filter recording processes

[Slavomir Kaslev]

Add --no-filter option which doesn't install filters for the trace-cmd recording
processes pids.

Signed-off-by: Slavomir Kaslev <kaslevs@vmware.com>
Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
 tracecmd/trace-record.c | 14 +++++++++++---
 tracecmd/trace-usage.c  |  1 +
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-record.c b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
index dae0396..05a313b 100644
--- a/tracecmd/trace-record.c
+++ b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ static int do_ptrace;
 
 static int filter_task;
 static int filter_pid = -1;
+static bool no_filter = false;
 
 static int local_cpu_count;
 
@@ -1063,6 +1064,9 @@ static void update_task_filter(void)
 	struct buffer_instance *instance;
 	int pid = getpid();
 
+	if (no_filter)
+		return;
+
 	if (filter_task)
 		add_filter_pid(pid, 0);
 
@@ -4377,9 +4381,9 @@ void update_first_instance(struct buffer_instance *instance, int topt)
 }
 
 enum {
-
-	OPT_quiet		= 246,
-	OPT_debug		= 247,
+	OPT_quiet		= 245,
+	OPT_debug		= 246,
+	OPT_no_filter		= 247,
 	OPT_max_graph_depth	= 248,
 	OPT_tsoffset		= 249,
 	OPT_bycomm		= 250,
@@ -4603,6 +4607,7 @@ static void parse_record_options(int argc,
 			{"by-comm", no_argument, NULL, OPT_bycomm},
 			{"ts-offset", required_argument, NULL, OPT_tsoffset},
 			{"max-graph-depth", required_argument, NULL, OPT_max_graph_depth},
+			{"no-filter", no_argument, NULL, OPT_no_filter},
 			{"debug", no_argument, NULL, OPT_debug},
 			{"quiet", no_argument, NULL, OPT_quiet},
 			{"help", no_argument, NULL, '?'},
@@ -4877,6 +4882,9 @@ static void parse_record_options(int argc,
 			if (!ctx->max_graph_depth)
 				die("Could not allocate option");
 			break;
+		case OPT_no_filter:
+			no_filter = true;
+			break;
 		case OPT_debug:
 			debug = 1;
 			break;
diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-usage.c b/tracecmd/trace-usage.c
index 9ea1906..29a7081 100644
--- a/tracecmd/trace-usage.c
+++ b/tracecmd/trace-usage.c
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ static struct usage_help usage_help[] = {
 		"          --func-stack perform a stack trace for function tracer\n"
 		"             (use with caution)\n"
 		"          --max-graph-depth limit function_graph depth\n"
+		"          --no-filter do not set any event filters\n"
 	},
 	{
 		"start",
-- 
2.19.1

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] trace-cmd: Add --no-filter option to not filter recording processes

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:00:16 +0300
Slavomir Kaslev <kaslevs@vmware.com> wrote:

> Add --no-filter option which doesn't install filters for the trace-cmd recording
> processes pids.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Slavomir Kaslev <kaslevs@vmware.com>
> Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

I'll apply this, but we should also update the man page.

-- Steve

> ---
>  tracecmd/trace-record.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>  tracecmd/trace-usage.c  |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-record.c b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
> index dae0396..05a313b 100644
> --- a/tracecmd/trace-record.c
> +++ b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
> @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ static int do_ptrace;
>  
>  static int filter_task;
>  static int filter_pid = -1;
> +static bool no_filter = false;
>  
>  static int local_cpu_count;
>  
> @@ -1063,6 +1064,9 @@ static void update_task_filter(void)
>  	struct buffer_instance *instance;
>  	int pid = getpid();
>  
> +	if (no_filter)
> +		return;
> +
>  	if (filter_task)
>  		add_filter_pid(pid, 0);
>  
> @@ -4377,9 +4381,9 @@ void update_first_instance(struct buffer_instance *instance, int topt)
>  }
>  
>  enum {
> -
> -	OPT_quiet		= 246,
> -	OPT_debug		= 247,
> +	OPT_quiet		= 245,
> +	OPT_debug		= 246,
> +	OPT_no_filter		= 247,
>  	OPT_max_graph_depth	= 248,
>  	OPT_tsoffset		= 249,
>  	OPT_bycomm		= 250,
> @@ -4603,6 +4607,7 @@ static void parse_record_options(int argc,
>  			{"by-comm", no_argument, NULL, OPT_bycomm},
>  			{"ts-offset", required_argument, NULL, OPT_tsoffset},
>  			{"max-graph-depth", required_argument, NULL, OPT_max_graph_depth},
> +			{"no-filter", no_argument, NULL, OPT_no_filter},
>  			{"debug", no_argument, NULL, OPT_debug},
>  			{"quiet", no_argument, NULL, OPT_quiet},
>  			{"help", no_argument, NULL, '?'},
> @@ -4877,6 +4882,9 @@ static void parse_record_options(int argc,
>  			if (!ctx->max_graph_depth)
>  				die("Could not allocate option");
>  			break;
> +		case OPT_no_filter:
> +			no_filter = true;
> +			break;
>  		case OPT_debug:
>  			debug = 1;
>  			break;
> diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-usage.c b/tracecmd/trace-usage.c
> index 9ea1906..29a7081 100644
> --- a/tracecmd/trace-usage.c
> +++ b/tracecmd/trace-usage.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ static struct usage_help usage_help[] = {
>  		"          --func-stack perform a stack trace for function tracer\n"
>  		"             (use with caution)\n"
>  		"          --max-graph-depth limit function_graph depth\n"
> +		"          --no-filter do not set any event filters\n"
>  	},
>  	{
>  		"start",

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

[Phil Auld]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:00:14AM +0300 Slavomir Kaslev wrote:
> This patchset optimizes how pid filters are expressed and makes it less likely
> that we overflow ftrace filters' size limit of one page.
> 
> Changes since v2:
> 
> Append exclude rules with &&
> 
> Changes since v1:
> 
> Add missing tags
> Fix append_filter_pid_range() callers to pass valid range as [min,max]
> 
> 
> Slavomir Kaslev (2):
>   trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed
>   trace-cmd: Add --no-filter option to not filter recording processes
> 
>  tracecmd/trace-record.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  tracecmd/trace-usage.c  |   1 +
>  2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.19.1
> 


This version is also working for my use case.  The logic in the filter
does show the recording thread pids in the sched switch event, at least 
when switching to/from a non-excluded process.  But I think that's 
desired.

The --no-filter option works as expected.


Acked-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>


Thanks,
Phil
-- 

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:22:54 -0400
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote:

> This version is also working for my use case.  The logic in the filter
> does show the recording thread pids in the sched switch event, at least 
> when switching to/from a non-excluded process.  But I think that's 
> desired.
> 
> The --no-filter option works as expected.
> 
> 
> Acked-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
> 

Could we get a Tested-by: from you for this series?

Thanks!

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

[Phil Auld]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 05:39:09PM -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:22:54 -0400
> Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This version is also working for my use case.  The logic in the filter
> > does show the recording thread pids in the sched switch event, at least 
> > when switching to/from a non-excluded process.  But I think that's 
> > desired.
> > 
> > The --no-filter option works as expected.
> > 
> > 
> > Acked-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
> > 
> 
> Could we get a Tested-by: from you for this series?

The second one for sure. I did it both with and without and
saw the difference.

I was not comfortable with that for the first because I really
only tested it in my setup on one machine (160 cpus). I didn't do
really thorough testing. If that's enough for you then sure :)

Tested-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>


Cheers,
Phil


> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- Steve

-- 

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:29:10 -0400
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Could we get a Tested-by: from you for this series?  
> 
> The second one for sure. I did it both with and without and
> saw the difference.
> 
> I was not comfortable with that for the first because I really
> only tested it in my setup on one machine (160 cpus). I didn't do
> really thorough testing. If that's enough for you then sure :)
> 
> Tested-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>

I'll just put it on the second one then.

Thanks!

-- Steve