Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PACTH v9] stacktrace: Eliminate task stack trace duplication | From | Robert Foss <> | Date | Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:41:30 -0400 |
| |
On 2016-08-17 02:06 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > 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@collabora.com wrote: >>>>>> From: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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@redhat.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >
What would that look like in practice? A user space daemon running in the background?
| |