Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: change where we report sched stats V2
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Dec 15 2014 - 12:30:40 EST
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 06:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:37:09AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > >Yeah, so I don't like this, it adds overhead for everyone.
> > >
> > Only if SCHEDSTATS is enabled tho, and it's no more overhead in the
> > SCHEDSTATS case than before. Would it be more acceptable to move the entire
> > callback under SCHEDSTATS?
> Nah, doesn't work. Distros need to enable the world and then some so
> .config is a false choice.
> > This is fine for discrete problems, but when trying to find a random latency
> > spike in a production workload it's impossible. If I do
> > trace-cmd record -e sched:sched_switch -T sleep 5
> > on just one of our random web servers I end up with this
> > du -h trace.dat
> > 62M trace.dat
> > thats 62 megs in 5 seconds. I ran the following command for almost 2 hours
> > when searching for a latency spike
> > trace-cmd record -B latency -e sched:sched_stat_blocked -f \"delay >=
> > 100000\" -T -o /root/latency.dat
> > and got the following .dat file
> > du -h latency.dat
> > 48M latency.dat
> Ah, regardless what I think of our filter implementation, that actually
> makes sense, let me ponder this a bit.
Oh, I just remembered we 'fixed' this for perf, see commit:
e6dab5ffab59 ("perf/trace: Add ability to set a target task for events")
I'm not sure how to do the same thing with ftrace though, maybe steve
The thing is, at wakeup time we know the task we're waking, so we pass
that task along and provide a trace for that instead of current. Andrew
(who implemented it might have some userspace to share).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/