| Message ID | 20220324025726.1727204-4-rostedt@goodmis.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | trace-cmd: Add trace-cmd analyze command | expand |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:57:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > Display for each CPU that was traced, the amount of time tasks ran on > them. Listing the tasks from the longest runner to the least. > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org> > --- > + for (i = 0; i < nr_tasks; i++) { > + task = cpu_tasks[i]->task; > + > + if (!i) { > + printf(" Task name PID \t Run time\n"); > + printf(" --------- --- \t --------\n"); > + } > + printf("%16s %8d\t", > + tep_data_comm_from_pid(tep, task->pid), > + task->pid); > + print_time(cpu_tasks[i]->runtime, '_'); > + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (task->runtime * 100) / total_time); Is there a reason for using the CPU-specific runtime for the value and the total runtime for the percentage? I expected the percentage to be the percentage of this CPU's time spend running the task.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 19:36:24 +0000 John Keeping <john@metanate.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:57:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > > > Display for each CPU that was traced, the amount of time tasks ran on > > them. Listing the tasks from the longest runner to the least. > > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > --- > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_tasks; i++) { > > + task = cpu_tasks[i]->task; > > + > > + if (!i) { > > + printf(" Task name PID \t Run time\n"); > > + printf(" --------- --- \t --------\n"); > > + } > > + printf("%16s %8d\t", > > + tep_data_comm_from_pid(tep, task->pid), > > + task->pid); > > + print_time(cpu_tasks[i]->runtime, '_'); > > + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (task->runtime * 100) / total_time); > > Is there a reason for using the CPU-specific runtime for the value and > the total runtime for the percentage? > > I expected the percentage to be the percentage of this CPU's time spend > running the task. We modify it so that each CPU has the same run time, unless there's missed events at the start (later patches), and then we change total_time to be the total time of the events on the CPU and not the entire trace. -- Steve
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 04:18:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 19:36:24 +0000 > John Keeping <john@metanate.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:57:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > > > > > Display for each CPU that was traced, the amount of time tasks ran on > > > them. Listing the tasks from the longest runner to the least. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > > --- > > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_tasks; i++) { > > > + task = cpu_tasks[i]->task; > > > + > > > + if (!i) { > > > + printf(" Task name PID \t Run time\n"); > > > + printf(" --------- --- \t --------\n"); > > > + } > > > + printf("%16s %8d\t", > > > + tep_data_comm_from_pid(tep, task->pid), > > > + task->pid); > > > + print_time(cpu_tasks[i]->runtime, '_'); > > > + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (task->runtime * 100) / total_time); > > > > Is there a reason for using the CPU-specific runtime for the value and > > the total runtime for the percentage? > > > > I expected the percentage to be the percentage of this CPU's time spend > > running the task. > > We modify it so that each CPU has the same run time, unless there's missed > events at the start (later patches), and then we change total_time to be > the total time of the events on the CPU and not the entire trace. I think we're talking about different things here, I probably wasn't entirely clear about this. It's the numerator of this division that I'm concerned about and I wonder if this should be: (cpu_tasks[i]->runtime * 100) / total_time If total_time is 10 seconds and there's a task A which runs on CPU0 for 2 seconds and CPU1 for 1 second then I expect to see: CPU 0 A 2.000 (20%) CPU 1 A 1.000 (10%) But at the moment both of those lines will give 30% (although the actual run times are correct).
On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:07:03 +0000 John Keeping <john@metanate.com> wrote: > > > > + print_time(cpu_tasks[i]->runtime, '_'); > > > > + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (task->runtime * 100) / total_time); > > > > > > Is there a reason for using the CPU-specific runtime for the value and > > > the total runtime for the percentage? > > > > > > I expected the percentage to be the percentage of this CPU's time spend > > > running the task. > > > > We modify it so that each CPU has the same run time, unless there's missed > > events at the start (later patches), and then we change total_time to be > > the total time of the events on the CPU and not the entire trace. > > I think we're talking about different things here, I probably wasn't > entirely clear about this. It's the numerator of this division that I'm > concerned about and I wonder if this should be: > > (cpu_tasks[i]->runtime * 100) / total_time Ah, I did misunderstand you. Yes, that's a typo. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go fix it. -- Steve
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 8:16 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:07:03 +0000 > John Keeping <john@metanate.com> wrote: > > > > > > + print_time(cpu_tasks[i]->runtime, '_'); > > > > > + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (task->runtime * 100) / total_time); > > > > > > > > Is there a reason for using the CPU-specific runtime for the value and > > > > the total runtime for the percentage? > > > > > > > > I expected the percentage to be the percentage of this CPU's time spend > > > > running the task. > > > > > > We modify it so that each CPU has the same run time, unless there's missed > > > events at the start (later patches), and then we change total_time to be > > > the total time of the events on the CPU and not the entire trace. > > > > I think we're talking about different things here, I probably wasn't > > entirely clear about this. It's the numerator of this division that I'm > > concerned about and I wonder if this should be: > > > > (cpu_tasks[i]->runtime * 100) / total_time > > Ah, I did misunderstand you. Yes, that's a typo. Thanks for pointing > that out. I'll go fix it. > > > > > + if (idle_task) { > > > > > + printf("idle:\t"); > > > > > + print_time(idle_task->runtime, '_'); > > > > > + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (idle_task->runtime * 100) / total_time); IIUC the idle_task->runtime works out the same as the per-cpu runtime. But for consistency I think we should use idle_cpu_task->runtime here as well Thanks, Kalesh > > -- Steve > >
diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-analyze.c b/tracecmd/trace-analyze.c index 2211079668e4..43e9ffa95687 100644 --- a/tracecmd/trace-analyze.c +++ b/tracecmd/trace-analyze.c @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct task_item { }; struct task_cpu_item { + unsigned long long runtime; struct trace_hash_item hash; struct task_item *task; }; @@ -171,6 +172,7 @@ static void update_cpu_task_times(struct cpu_data *cpu_data, delta = ts - task->start_ts; task->runtime += delta; + cpu_task->runtime += delta; } static void update_pid(struct cpu_data *cpu_data, @@ -198,6 +200,7 @@ static void update_pid(struct cpu_data *cpu_data, } else { delta = record->ts - cpu_data->last_ts; task->runtime += delta; + cpu_task->runtime += delta; } cpu_data->last_ts = record->ts; @@ -246,6 +249,7 @@ static void update_first_pid(struct cpu_data *cpu_data) task = cpu_task->task; delta = cpu_data->start_ts - start_ts; task->runtime += delta; + cpu_task->runtime += delta; cpu_data->start_ts = start_ts; } @@ -275,6 +279,17 @@ static int cmp_tasks(const void *A, const void *B) return (*a)->runtime < (*b)->runtime; } +static int cmp_cpu_tasks(const void *A, const void *B) +{ + struct task_cpu_item * const *a = A; + struct task_cpu_item * const *b = B; + + if ((*a)->runtime > (*b)->runtime) + return -1; + + return (*a)->runtime < (*b)->runtime; +} + static void print_time(unsigned long long ts, char delim) { unsigned long long secs; @@ -306,6 +321,67 @@ static void print_time(unsigned long long ts, char delim) } } +static void print_cpu_data(struct tep_handle *tep, struct cpu_data *cpu_data) +{ + unsigned long long total_time; + struct trace_hash_item **bucket; + struct trace_hash_item *item; + struct task_cpu_item **cpu_tasks; + struct task_cpu_item *cpu_task; + struct task_item *idle_task = NULL; + struct task_item *task; + struct analysis_data *data; + int nr_tasks; + int i = 0; + + data = cpu_data->data; + total_time = data->last_ts - data->start_ts; + + printf("\nCPU %d\n", cpu_data->cpu); + printf("-------\n"); + + cpu_tasks = malloc(sizeof(*cpu_tasks) * cpu_data->nr_tasks); + + if (!cpu_tasks) + die("Could not allocate task array"); + + trace_hash_for_each_bucket(bucket, &cpu_data->tasks) { + trace_hash_for_each_item(item, bucket) { + cpu_task = task_cpu_from_hash(item); + if (cpu_task->task->pid <= 0) + idle_task = cpu_task->task; + else + cpu_tasks[i++] = cpu_task; + } + } + nr_tasks = i; + + if (idle_task) { + printf("idle:\t"); + print_time(idle_task->runtime, '_'); + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (idle_task->runtime * 100) / total_time); + } else { + printf("Never idle!\n"); + } + + qsort(cpu_tasks, nr_tasks, sizeof(*cpu_tasks), cmp_cpu_tasks); + + for (i = 0; i < nr_tasks; i++) { + task = cpu_tasks[i]->task; + + if (!i) { + printf(" Task name PID \t Run time\n"); + printf(" --------- --- \t --------\n"); + } + printf("%16s %8d\t", + tep_data_comm_from_pid(tep, task->pid), + task->pid); + print_time(cpu_tasks[i]->runtime, '_'); + printf(" (%%%lld)\n", (task->runtime * 100) / total_time); + } + free(cpu_tasks); +} + static void print_total(struct tep_handle *tep, struct analysis_data *data) { unsigned long long total_time; @@ -376,6 +452,12 @@ static void print_total(struct tep_handle *tep, struct analysis_data *data) free(tasks); printf("\n"); + + for (i = 0; i < data->allocated_cpus; i++) { + if (!data->cpu_data[i].data) + continue; + print_cpu_data(tep, &data->cpu_data[i]); + } } static void free_tasks(struct trace_hash *hash)