From: Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> To: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 3/5] memprof: dump traceno if allocate from trace Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:21:27 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210929192127.i53vbniej5er652q@surf.localdomain> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210916153201.GC6844@tarantool.org> Hi, Igor! Thank you for the review! On 16.09.2021 18:32, Igor Munkin wrote: >Misha, > >Thanks for the patch! Please consider my comments below. > >On 20.08.21, Mikhail Shishatskiy wrote: >> When LuaJIT executes a trace, the trace number is stored in >> the virtual machine state. So, we can treat this number as >> an allocation event source in memprof and report allocation events >> from traces as well. >> >> Previously, all the allocations from traces were marked as INTERNAL. >> >> This patch introduces the functionality described above by adding >> a new allocation source type named ASOURCE_TRACE. If at the moment >> when allocation event occurs VM state indicates that trace executed, >> trace number streamed to a binary file: >> >> | loc-trace := trace-addr trace-no >> | trace-addr := <ULEB128> >> | trace-no := <ULEB128> >> >> Also, the memory profiler parser is adjusted to recognize this >> source type by extending <loc> structure: field <traceno>, >> representing trace number, is added. > >I understand, why you've chosen this order, but I don't like it. IMHO, >the binary format should not rely or depend on the particular parser >implementation a lot. Please, consider more comments below. Fixed in the upcoming patch series v4. > >> >> Part of tarantool/tarantool#5814 >> --- >> >> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5814 >> Luajit branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/shishqa/gh-5814-group-allocations-on-trace-by-trace-number >> tarantool branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/shishqa/gh-5814-group-allocations-on-trace-by-trace-number >> >> src/Makefile.dep.original | 2 +- >> src/lj_memprof.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> src/lj_memprof.h | 15 ++++++++++----- >> tools/memprof/parse.lua | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- >> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/Makefile.dep.original b/src/Makefile.dep.original >> index f3672413..ee6bafb2 100644 >> --- a/src/Makefile.dep.original >> +++ b/src/Makefile.dep.original >> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ lj_mcode.o: lj_mcode.c lj_obj.h lua.h luaconf.h lj_def.h lj_arch.h \ >> lj_gc.h lj_err.h lj_errmsg.h lj_jit.h lj_ir.h lj_mcode.h lj_trace.h \ >> lj_dispatch.h lj_bc.h lj_traceerr.h lj_vm.h >> lj_memprof.o: lj_memprof.c lj_arch.h lua.h luaconf.h lj_memprof.h \ >> - lj_def.h lj_wbuf.h lj_obj.h lj_frame.h lj_bc.h lj_debug.h >> + lj_def.h lj_wbuf.h lj_obj.h lj_frame.h lj_bc.h lj_debug.h lj_dispatch.h > >It looks some headers are missing (it's better use <make depend> from >Makefile.original to check yourself). Fixed in the upcoming patch series v4. > >> lj_meta.o: lj_meta.c lj_obj.h lua.h luaconf.h lj_def.h lj_arch.h lj_gc.h \ >> lj_err.h lj_errmsg.h lj_buf.h lj_str.h lj_tab.h lj_meta.h lj_frame.h \ >> lj_bc.h lj_vm.h lj_strscan.h lj_strfmt.h lj_lib.h >> diff --git a/src/lj_memprof.c b/src/lj_memprof.c >> index 2c1ef3b8..fb99829d 100644 >> --- a/src/lj_memprof.c >> +++ b/src/lj_memprof.c > ><snipped> > >> @@ -168,9 +197,11 @@ static const memprof_writer memprof_writers[] = { >> ** But since traces must follow the semantics of the original code, >> ** behaviour of Lua and JITted code must match 1:1 in terms of allocations, >> ** which makes using memprof with enabled JIT virtually redundant. >> - ** Hence use the stub below. >> + ** But if one wants to investigate allocations with JIT enabled, >> + ** memprof_write_trace() dumps trace number to the binary output. > >Typo: number and mcode starting address, right? Fixed in the upcoming patch series v4. > >> + ** It can be useful to compare with with jit.v or jit.dump outputs. >> */ >> - memprof_write_hvmstate /* LJ_VMST_TRACE */ >> + memprof_write_trace /* LJ_VMST_TRACE */ >> }; >> >> static void memprof_write_caller(struct memprof *mp, uint8_t aevent) >> diff --git a/src/lj_memprof.h b/src/lj_memprof.h >> index 3417475d..6a35385d 100644 >> --- a/src/lj_memprof.h >> +++ b/src/lj_memprof.h >> @@ -51,9 +51,10 @@ >> */ >> >> #define SYMTAB_LFUNC ((uint8_t)0) >> +#define SYMTAB_TRACE ((uint8_t)1) > >This looks like related to the next patch, doesn't it? Fixed in the upcoming patch series v4. > >> #define SYMTAB_FINAL ((uint8_t)0x80) >> >> -#define LJM_CURRENT_FORMAT_VERSION 0x01 >> +#define LJM_CURRENT_FORMAT_VERSION 0x02 >> >> /* >> ** Event stream format: > ><snipped> > >> diff --git a/tools/memprof/parse.lua b/tools/memprof/parse.lua >> index 12e2758f..adc7c072 100644 >> --- a/tools/memprof/parse.lua >> +++ b/tools/memprof/parse.lua > ><snipped> > >> @@ -24,8 +24,11 @@ local AEVENT_MASK = 0x3 >> local ASOURCE_INT = lshift(1, 2) >> local ASOURCE_LFUNC = lshift(2, 2) >> local ASOURCE_CFUNC = lshift(3, 2) >> +local ASOURCE_TRACE = lshift(4, 2) >> >> -local ASOURCE_MASK = lshift(0x3, 2) >> +local ASOURCE_MASK = lshift(0x7, 2) >> + >> +local EV_HEADER_MAX = ASOURCE_TRACE + AEVENT_REALLOC > >Why so complex? I believe lshift(5, 2) is more clear and covers (i.e. is >greater than) all cases of AEVENT_* and ASOURCE_*. As for me, lshift(5, 2) is less descriptive. ASOURCE_TRACE + AEVENT_REALLOC shows the layout of flags in the header [FUUSSSEE] ^^^^^ and gives an idea, why EV_HEADER_MAX is EV_HEADER_MAX :) > >> >> local M = {} >> >> @@ -59,20 +62,23 @@ local function link_to_previous(heap_chunk, e, nsize) >> end >> end >> >> -local function id_location(addr, line) >> - return string_format("f%#xl%d", addr, line), { >> +local function id_location(addr, line, traceno) >> + return string_format("f%#xl%dt%d", addr, line, traceno), { >> addr = addr, >> line = line, >> + traceno = traceno, >> } >> end >> >> local function parse_location(reader, asource) >> if asource == ASOURCE_INT then >> - return id_location(0, 0) >> + return id_location(0, 0, 0) >> elseif asource == ASOURCE_CFUNC then >> - return id_location(reader:read_uleb128(), 0) >> + return id_location(reader:read_uleb128(), 0, 0) >> elseif asource == ASOURCE_LFUNC then >> - return id_location(reader:read_uleb128(), reader:read_uleb128()) >> + return id_location(reader:read_uleb128(), reader:read_uleb128(), 0) >> + elseif asource == ASOURCE_TRACE then >> + return id_location(reader:read_uleb128(), 0, reader:read_uleb128()) > >As a result of your changes this function becomes too "cryptic". It's >better to refactor this function (maybe even in a separate commit), so >we have something like the function below at the final. Refactored in the upcoming patch series v4. > >| local function id(params) >| return string_format("f%#xl%ds%d", params.addr, params.line, params.state) >| end >| >| local function parse_location(reader, asource) >| local location = { addr = 0, line = 0, traceno = 0 } >| if asource == ASOURCE_INT then >| -- Do nothing >| elseif asource == ASOURCE_CFUNC then >| location.addr = reader:read_uleb128() >| elseif asource == ASOURCE_LFUNC then >| location.addr = reader:read_uleb128() >| location.line = reader:read_uleb128() >| elseif asource == ASOURCE_TRACE then >| location.trace = reader:read_uleb128() >| location.addr = reader:read_uleb128() >| else >| error("Unknown asource "..asource) >| end >| return id(location), location >| end > >You can also make this function public and move it to utils.lua module. > >BTW, these entries are "loaded" but not "rendered" in the final output >now, aren't they? In other words, why don't you make everything in a >single patch? My bad, I split changes in quite a strange way. New patch series makes it more "natural": simple rendering is moved to this patch. More complex "started at ..." is added in another patch. > >> end >> error("Unknown asource "..asource) > end > ><snipped> > >> -- >> 2.32.0 >> > >-- >Best regards, >IM Best regards, Mikhail Shishatskiy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-29 19:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-20 7:05 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 0/4] memprof: group allocations on traces by trace number Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-20 7:05 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 1/5] core: add const to lj_debug_line proto parameter Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-16 15:29 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-20 7:05 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 2/5] test: separate memprof Lua API tests into subtests Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-16 15:29 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-20 7:05 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 3/5] memprof: dump traceno if allocate from trace Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-16 15:32 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 19:21 ` Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches [this message] 2021-08-20 7:05 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 4/5] memprof: extend symtab with info about traces Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-16 15:32 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 19:21 ` Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-20 7:05 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 5/5] luajit: change order of modules Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-16 15:32 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 20:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v4 0/4] memprof: group allocations on traces by traceno Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 20:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v4 1/4] test: separate memprof Lua API tests into subtests Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-10-27 13:56 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-10-27 15:07 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 20:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v4 2/4] memprof: refactor location parsing Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-10-27 13:56 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches [not found] ` <20211104130010.mcvnra6e4yl5moo2@surf.localdomain> 2021-11-10 15:38 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 20:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v4 3/4] memprof: group allocations on traces by traceno Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-10-27 13:56 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches [not found] ` <20211104130156.f2botlihlfhwd3yh@surf.localdomain> 2021-11-11 15:34 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-29 20:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v4 4/4] memprof: add info about trace start to symtab Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-11-01 16:31 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches [not found] ` <20211104130228.x6qcne5xeh544hm7@surf.localdomain> 2021-11-12 13:34 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2021-11-17 8:17 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2021-11-22 15:11 ` Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-11-24 12:42 ` Mikhail Shishatskiy via Tarantool-patches 2021-11-24 16:44 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2022-01-27 23:29 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v4 0/4] memprof: group allocations on traces by traceno Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches
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=20210929192127.i53vbniej5er652q@surf.localdomain \ --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --cc=imun@tarantool.org \ --cc=m.shishatskiy@tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v3 3/5] memprof: dump traceno if allocate from trace' \ /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
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox