Add a folded stacks output format #669
Conversation
These were named 'source' because it initially only tested the list/source output type. But 'dot' output isn't really a source. This is just a cleanup preparing for the next commit
|
Todo: I should add a test case for same stacks different labels and make sure they're aggregated together. I suspect that's not working right now, that instead it'll output duplicate stacks. |
|
Particularly I'd love some feedback about if there's a different function or something I should use to print the name of the stack. For example, I'd expect |
| // TODO: should we print more than just s.Name? | ||
| // NodeInfo.PrintableName() has a lot more. | ||
|
|
||
| // Remove semicolons and newlines. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Err, didn't mean to click "Add single comment", I'll have more comments!
| if i > 0 { | ||
| fmt.Fprint(w, ";") | ||
| } | ||
| // TODO: should we print more than just s.Name? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think this needs more discussion. There is an implicit interplay with the granularity. See below. I would expect that we utilize that - i.e. use PrintableName() or NameComponents() directly defining how they should join. This is in particular important because graph.CreateNodes() respects the granularity and so if we don't encode all components in the string, then something like "-folded -filefunctions" may produce duplicate elements.
$ pprof -top -nodecount=5 -symbolize=none internal/report/testdata/sample.cpu
File: sample.bin
Type: cpu
Time: Sep 29, 2017 at 1:57pm (PDT)
Duration: 2s, Total samples = 1760ms (87.91%)
Showing nodes accounting for 1640ms, 93.18% of 1760ms total
Showing top 5 nodes out of 14
flat flat% sum% cum cum%
1280ms 72.73% 72.73% 1370ms 77.84% runtime.mapiternext
150ms 8.52% 81.25% 1760ms 100% main.busyLoop
110ms 6.25% 87.50% 110ms 6.25% math.Abs (inline)
60ms 3.41% 90.91% 70ms 3.98% runtime.evacuate
40ms 2.27% 93.18% 40ms 2.27% runtime.add (inline)
$ pprof -top -nodecount=5 -symbolize=none -filefunctions internal/report/testdata/sample.cpu
File: sample.bin
Type: cpu
Time: Sep 29, 2017 at 1:57pm (PDT)
Duration: 2s, Total samples = 1760ms (87.91%)
Showing nodes accounting for 1640ms, 93.18% of 1760ms total
Showing top 5 nodes out of 14
flat flat% sum% cum cum%
1280ms 72.73% 72.73% 1370ms 77.84% runtime.mapiternext /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go
150ms 8.52% 81.25% 1760ms 100% main.busyLoop internal/report/testdata/sample/sample.go
110ms 6.25% 87.50% 110ms 6.25% math.Abs /usr/lib/google-golang/src/math/abs.go (inline)
60ms 3.41% 90.91% 70ms 3.98% runtime.evacuate /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go
40ms 2.27% 93.18% 40ms 2.27% runtime.add /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/stubs.go (inline)
$ pprof -top -nodecount=5 -symbolize=none -files internal/report/testdata/sample.cpu
File: sample.bin
Type: cpu
Time: Sep 29, 2017 at 1:57pm (PDT)
Duration: 2s, Total samples = 1760ms (87.91%)
Showing nodes accounting for 1740ms, 98.86% of 1760ms total
Showing top 5 nodes out of 8
flat flat% sum% cum cum%
1400ms 79.55% 79.55% 1450ms 82.39% /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go
150ms 8.52% 88.07% 1760ms 100% internal/report/testdata/sample/sample.go
110ms 6.25% 94.32% 110ms 6.25% /usr/lib/google-golang/src/math/abs.go (inline)
40ms 2.27% 96.59% 130ms 7.39% /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap_fast.go
40ms 2.27% 98.86% 40ms 2.27% /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/stubs.go (inline)
$ pprof -top -nodecount=5 -symbolize=none -addresses internal/report/testdata/sample.cpu
File: sample.bin
Type: cpu
Time: Sep 29, 2017 at 1:57pm (PDT)
Duration: 2s, Total samples = 1760ms (87.91%)
Showing nodes accounting for 350ms, 19.89% of 1760ms total
Showing top 5 nodes out of 96
flat flat% sum% cum cum%
100ms 5.68% 5.68% 100ms 5.68% 00000000004b4463 math.Abs /usr/lib/google-golang/src/math/abs.go:16
70ms 3.98% 9.66% 70ms 3.98% 00000000004095d0 runtime.mapiternext /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go:823
70ms 3.98% 13.64% 70ms 3.98% 00000000004096a2 runtime.mapiternext /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go:856
60ms 3.41% 17.05% 60ms 3.41% 000000000040957a runtime.mapiternext /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go:819
50ms 2.84% 19.89% 50ms 2.84% 00000000004095b6 runtime.mapiternext /usr/lib/google-golang/src/runtime/hashmap.go:822
| @@ -33,9 +33,12 @@ type testcase struct { | |||
| want string | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func TestSource(t *testing.T) { | |||
| func TestTextReports(t *testing.T) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we have a separate test for the folded report? I find such combined meta-tests somewhat complicated... If this is to share setup / teardown code then maybe we can share it by other means?
|
Looks like this PR stalled, closing it. Feel free to re-open if needed. |
Fixes #658
I'm not sure I've covered everything here; mailing it out early for feedback.
I based this exporter off
printTraces, removing the extraneous bits like labels and unit formatting.I copied the sample mean divisor logic from
printTraces.This uses the
sample_indexto choose which number to output.I'm not sure the best way to deal with semicolons or newlines in names. I just removed them for now, although this might lead to colissions. I don't think there's a way to escape them in folded stacks format. Maybe I could just ignore them, and output a corrupted output. That's what a lot of other exporters do. Or say that any profile that contains them is invalid, and return an error. For now, just remove them.
Prior art:
This connects pprof with visualisation tools that accept the folded stack format: https://profilerpedia.markhansen.co.nz/formats/folded-stacks/