Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] softirq: Introduce statistics for softirq

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:36:34 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > Statistics for softirq doesn't exist.
> > > It will be helpful like statistics for interrupts.
> > > This patch introduces counting the number of softirq,
> > > which will be exported in /proc/softirqs.
> > > 
> > > When softirq handler consumes much CPU time,
> > > /proc/stat is like the following.
> > > 
> > > $ while :; do  cat /proc/stat | head -n1 ; sleep 10 ; done
> > > cpu  88 0 408 739665 583 28 2 0 0
> > > cpu  450 0 1090 740970 594 28 1294 0 0
> > >                               ^^^^
> > >                              softirq
> > > 
> > > In such a situation,
> > > /proc/softirqs shows us which softirq handler is invoked.
> > > We can see the increase rate of softirqs.
> > > 
> > > <before>
> > > $ cat /proc/softirqs
> > >                 CPU0       CPU1       CPU2       CPU3
> > > HI                 0          0          0          0
> > > TIMER         462850     462805     462782     462718
> > > NET_TX             0          0          0        365
> > > NET_RX          2472          2          2         40
> > > BLOCK              0          0        381       1164
> > > TASKLET            0          0          0        224
> > > SCHED         462654     462689     462698     462427
> > > RCU             3046       2423       3367       3173
> > > 
> > > <after>
> > > $ cat /proc/softirqs
> > >                 CPU0       CPU1       CPU2       CPU3
> > > HI                 0          0          0          0
> > > TIMER         463361     465077     465056     464991
> > > NET_TX            53          0          1        365
> > > NET_RX          3757          2          2         40
> > > BLOCK              0          0        398       1170
> > > TASKLET            0          0          0        224
> > > SCHED         463074     464318     464612     463330
> > > RCU             3505       2948       3947       3673
> > 
> > Maybe, this printing format don't works well on >100 CPUS.
> > 
> > Do you have any experience of trouble-shooting by this patch?
> > Actually, I don't understand this patch usuful working situation.
> 
> When reported that CPU TIME of softirq went up,
> we had to investigate the cause.
> In that case, kind of network looked suspicious.
> We added such a function to confirm.
> 
> Original patch shows ticks of softirqs.
> But /proc/interrups have counts of interrupts.
> So we changed from ticks to counts.

ok. it seems reasonable reason.
and this patch looks good to me.

	Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>  
> > Honestly, I think HI and TASKLET are not beneficialness.
> > end user can't know what tasklet spent time.
> > TIMER also are not so much useful because it always have the same rate.
> > 
> > So.. guessing...
> > 
> > ultra band-width networking problem?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/