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, [email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > From: Ying Han <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > 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/[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > 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
