Re: [PATCH v2] mm: emit tracepoint when RSS changes by threshold

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:35 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> [ Added Tom ]
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:03:01 -0700
> Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:43 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > [Add Steven]
> > >
> > > On Wed 04-09-19 12:28:08, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:38 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed 04-09-19 11:32:58, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > but also for reducing
> > > > > > tracing noise. Flooding the traces makes it less useful for long traces and
> > > > > > post-processing of traces. IOW, the overhead reduction is a bonus.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not really anything special for this tracepoint though.
> > > > > Basically any tracepoint in a hot path is in the same situation and I do
> > > > > not see a point why each of them should really invent its own way to
> > > > > throttle. Maybe there is some way to do that in the tracing subsystem
> > > > > directly.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure if there is a way to do this easily. Add to that, the fact that
> > > > you still have to call into trace events. Why call into it at all, if you can
> > > > filter in advance and have a sane filtering default?
> > > >
> > > > The bigger improvement with the threshold is the number of trace records are
> > > > almost halved by using a threshold. The number of records went from 4.6K to
> > > > 2.6K.
> > >
> > > Steven, would it be feasible to add a generic tracepoint throttling?
> >
> > I might misunderstand this but is the issue here actually throttling
> > of the sheer number of trace records or tracing large enough changes
> > to RSS that user might care about? Small changes happen all the time
> > but we are likely not interested in those. Surely we could postprocess
> > the traces to extract changes large enough to be interesting but why
> > capture uninteresting information in the first place? IOW the
> > throttling here should be based not on the time between traces but on
> > the amount of change of the traced signal. Maybe a generic facility
> > like that would be a good idea?
>
> You mean like add a trigger (or filter) that only traces if a field has
> changed since the last time the trace was hit?

Almost... I mean emit a trace if a field has changed by more than X
amount since the last time the trace was hit.

> Hmm, I think we could
> possibly do that. Perhaps even now with histogram triggers?
>
> -- Steve
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>