From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: David Wang <00107082@163.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ipv4/proc: Avoid usage for seq_printf() when reading /proc/net/snmp
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:16:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93a2d882-022f-47fd-a17c-e4d45b182cea@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5db8d6bc.9fe1.1932a2f5ce9.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
On 11/14/24 11:19, David Wang wrote:
> At 2024-11-14 17:30:34, "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/24 05:56, David Wang wrote:
>>> seq_printf() is costy, when reading /proc/net/snmp, profiling indicates
>>> seq_printf() takes more than 50% samples of snmp_seq_show():
>>> snmp_seq_show(97.751% 158722/162373)
>>> snmp_seq_show_tcp_udp.isra.0(40.017% 63515/158722)
>>> seq_printf(83.451% 53004/63515)
>>> seq_write(1.170% 743/63515)
>>> _find_next_bit(0.727% 462/63515)
>>> ...
>>> seq_printf(24.762% 39303/158722)
>>> snmp_seq_show_ipstats.isra.0(21.487% 34104/158722)
>>> seq_printf(85.788% 29257/34104)
>>> _find_next_bit(0.331% 113/34104)
>>> seq_write(0.235% 80/34104)
>>> ...
>>> icmpmsg_put(7.235% 11483/158722)
>>> seq_printf(41.714% 4790/11483)
>>> seq_write(2.630% 302/11483)
>>> ...
>>> Time for a million rounds of stress reading /proc/net/snmp:
>>> real 0m24.323s
>>> user 0m0.293s
>>> sys 0m23.679s
>>> On average, reading /proc/net/snmp takes 0.023ms.
>>> With this patch, extra costs of seq_printf() is avoided, and a million
>>> rounds of reading /proc/net/snmp now takes only ~15.853s:
>>> real 0m16.386s
>>> user 0m0.280s
>>> sys 0m15.853s
>>> On average, one read takes 0.015ms, a ~40% improvement.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Wang <00107082@163.com>
>>
>> If the user space is really concerned with snmp access performances, I
>> think such information should be exposed via netlink.
>>
>> Still the goal of the optimization looks doubtful. The total number of
>> mibs domain is constant and limited (differently from the network
>> devices number that in specific setup can grow a lot). Stats polling
>> should be a low frequency operation. Why you need to optimize it?
>
> Well, one thing I think worth mention, optimize /proc entries can help
> increase sample frequency, hence more accurate rate analysis,
> for monitoring tools with a fixed/limited cpu quota.
>
> And for /proc/net/*, the optimization would be amplified when considering network namespaces.
I guess scaling better with many namespace could be useful.
Please try to implement this interface over netlink.
Thanks,
Paolo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-14 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-11 4:56 David Wang
2024-11-14 9:30 ` Paolo Abeni
2024-11-14 10:19 ` David Wang
2024-11-14 11:16 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=93a2d882-022f-47fd-a17c-e4d45b182cea@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=00107082@163.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®