Re: [PACTH v9] stacktrace: Eliminate task stack trace duplication

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:40:33PM -0400, Robert Foss wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016-08-17 12:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Robert Foss wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2016-08-17 02:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 07:12:36PM -0400, robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > From: Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > The problem with small dmesg ring buffer like 512k is that only limited number
> > > > > of task traces will be logged. Sometimes we lose important information only
> > > > > because of too many duplicated stack traces. This problem occurs when dumping
> > > > > lots of stacks in a single operation, such as sysrq-T.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch tries to reduce the duplication of task stack trace in the dump
> > > > > message by hashing the task stack. The hashtable is a 32k pre-allocated buffer
> > > > > during bootup. Each time if we find the identical task trace in the task stack,
> > > > > we dump only the pid of the task which has the task trace dumped. So it is easy
> > > > > to back track to the full stack with the pid.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When we do the hashing, we eliminate garbage entries from stack traces. Those
> > > > > entries are still being printed in the dump to provide more debugging
> > > > > informations.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [   53.510162] kworker/0:0     S ffffffff8161d820     0     4      2 0x00000000
> > > > > [   53.517237]  ffff88027547de60 0000000000000046 ffffffff812ab840 0000000000000000
> > > > > [   53.524663]  ffff880275460080 ffff88027547dfd8 ffff88027547dfd8 ffff88027547dfd8
> > > > > [   53.532092]  ffffffff81813020 ffff880275460080 0000000000000000 ffff8808758670c0
> > > > > [   53.539521] Call Trace:
> > > > > [   53.541974]  [<ffffffff812ab840>] ? cfq_init_queue+0x350/0x350
> > > > > [   53.547791]  [<ffffffff81524d49>] schedule+0x29/0x70
> > > > > [   53.552761]  [<ffffffff810945a3>] worker_thread+0x233/0x380
> > > > > [   53.558318]  [<ffffffff81094370>] ? manage_workers.isra.28+0x230/0x230
> > > > > [   53.564839]  [<ffffffff81099a73>] kthread+0x93/0xa0
> > > > > [   53.569714]  [<ffffffff8152e6d4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > > > > [   53.575628]  [<ffffffff810999e0>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x140/0x140
> > > > > [   53.581714]  [<ffffffff8152e6d0>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
> > > > > [   53.586762] kworker/u:0     S ffffffff8161d820     0     5      2 0x00000000
> > > > > [   53.593858]  ffff88027547fe60 0000000000000046 ffffffffa005cc70 0000000000000000
> > > > > [   53.601307]  ffff8802754627d0 ffff88027547ffd8 ffff88027547ffd8 ffff88027547ffd8
> > > > > [   53.608788]  ffffffff81813020 ffff8802754627d0 0000000000011fc0 ffff8804758670c0
> > > > > [   53.616232] Call Trace:
> > > > > [   53.618676] <Same stack as pid 4>
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You might want to wait a bit and have a look at this:
> > > > 
> > > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1471011425.git.jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I'll have a look through that series!
> > > Thanks!
> > 
> > Yeah, those patches replace dump_trace() with a new unwinder interface,
> > so if they get merged, this will need to be rewritten a little bit.
> > 
> > As for the patch itself, I'm not crazy about how it pushes the decision
> > of whether to print the stack of a given task down to the stack dump
> > code in show_trace_log_lvl().
> > 
> > I think I'd prefer to instead change the implementation of sysrq-T so
> > that it uses save_stack_trace_tsk(), and then uses
> > printk_stack_address() to print the stack.  Then the stack dump code in
> > dumpstack*.c would be completely unaffected.
> > 
> > Or, even better, instead of sysrq-T, can the user just read
> > /proc/*/{comm,stack} and /proc/sched_debug?  That gives basically the
> > same information without flooding printk.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback Josh!
> 
> I think the save_stack_trace_tsk() changes you are suggesting sound very
> reasonable. However requiring the user to read /proc/*/{comm,stack} sort of
> circumnavigates the goal of the patch, which is to reduce clutter in the
> default stack traces that one encounters.

Yes, but maybe the hashing and deduplication of stacks could also be
done in user space?

-- 
Josh