[igt-dev] [PATCH igt 1/2] lib/igt_drm_fdinfo: Parse memory usage

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 13/04/2023 19:26, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 8:19 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/04/2023 22:56, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>
>>>
>>> Add parsing for the memory usage related fdinfo stats.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>    lib/igt_drm_fdinfo.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    lib/igt_drm_fdinfo.h |  9 +++++++++
>>>    2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/igt_drm_fdinfo.c b/lib/igt_drm_fdinfo.c
>>> index b850d221..6269e166 100644
>>> --- a/lib/igt_drm_fdinfo.c
>>> +++ b/lib/igt_drm_fdinfo.c
>>> @@ -124,6 +124,34 @@ static const char *find_kv(const char *buf, const char *key, size_t keylen)
>>>        return *p ? p : NULL;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> +static size_t find_mem_kv(const char *buf, const char *key)
>>> +{
>>> +     const char *val = find_kv(buf, key, strlen(key));
>>
>> If you were asking yourself why I made strlen an argument to find_kv I
>> have to admit I micro-optimized it a bit based on profiling. Sad fact is
>> hunting for drm fdinfo in procfs sucks and gputop uses more CPU time
>> than top, to even display less data. More processes with more open files
>> there are, even when the 99.9% are not DRM, more taxing it is.
> 
> Did a release build really not end up with it inlined??  If so I guess
> we can make this a macro, but it seems a bit surprising.  This should
> be a thing the compiler can figure out.

AFAIR it wasn't able to figure out to evaluate the strlen at compile 
time when inside find_kv. Pretty sure it was the default build 
(debugoptimized) but it was also more than a year ago now so I guess I'd 
need to repeat the experiment to be sure.

Regards,

Tvrtko