I need to calculate the cpu usage and aggregate it from proc file in linux
/proc/stat gives me data but how would i come to know the % used of cpu at time as
stat gives me the count of processes at cores running at any time which does not give me any idea of %use of cpu?
And i am coding this in Golang and have to do this w/o scripts
Thanks in advance!!
/proc/stat does not only give you the count of processes on each core. man proc will tell you the exact format of that file. Copied from it, here is the part you should be interested in:
/proc/stat
cpu 3357 0 4313 1362393
The amount of time, measured in units of USER_HZ
(1/100ths of a second on most architectures, use
sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK) to obtain the right value), that the
system spent in user mode, user mode with low priority
(nice), system mode, and the idle task, respectively.
The last value should be USER_HZ times the second entry
in the uptime pseudo-file.
It is then easy to do the substraction of the idle field between two measures, which will give you the time spent not doing anything by this CPU. The other value that you can extract is the time doing something, which is the difference between two measures of:
time in user mode + time spent in user mode with low priority + time spent in system mode
You will then have two values; one, A, is expressing the time doing nothing, and the other, B, the time actually doing something. B / (A + B) will give you the percentage of time the CPU was busy.
Related
I would like to know if it is possible to modify easily perf linux with stat module to create an interval of cycles (or instructions by cycle) instead of an interval of time ? The goal is to optimize the precision of the counters got by interval. The time unit is not accurate enough.
I have a friend which submits this idea but I looked the source code a little and I understood (maybe I have wrong) that we :
create a condition for a time calculated with the rdtsc library (some clock_gettime)
create a "wait" in the perf processus
launch the program to test
test if we respect the time condition : we continue or we break the wait function with a save on the mapped register system information in perf (and call the wait function if it is not over)
I would like this result :
cycles counts unit events
10000 25000 instructions
10000 450 branch-misses
20000 21000 instructions
20000 850 branch-misses
Unfortunately, I'm seeing a big problem if I want to use the result of a counter like a condition I have not yet. Or should I get all the time this or these counter(s) which define my "interval condition" ? I also saw that for a time interval, we shouldn't get counters with a frequency lower than 100ms because it generates overhead. If I get some counters every 10000 cycles, would I have the same problems ? I don't know where is this overhead (calls system ?).
I have an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4720HQ CPU # 2.60GHz (Haswell) processor. In a relatively idle situation, I ran the following Perf commands and their outputs are shown, below. The counters are offcore_response.all_data_rd.l3_miss.any_response and mem_load_uops_retired.l3_miss:
sudo perf stat -a -e offcore_response.all_data_rd.l3_miss.any_response,mem_load_uops_retired.l3_miss sleep 10
Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
3,713,037 offcore_response.all_data_rd.l3_miss.any_response
2,909,573 mem_load_uops_retired.l3_miss
10.016644133 seconds time elapsed
These two values seem consistent, as the latter excludes prefetch requests and those not targeted at DRAM. But they do not match the read counter in the IMC. This counter is called UNC_IMC_DRAM_DATA_READS and documented here. I read the counter reread it 1 second later. The difference was around 30,000,000 (EDITED). If multiplied by 10 (to estimate for 10 seconds) the resulting value will be around 300 million (EDITED), which is 100 times the value of the above-mentioned performance counters (EDITED). It is nowhere near 3 million! What am I missing?
P.S.: The difference is much smaller (but still large), when the system has more load.
The question is also asked, here:
https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Performance-Counters-and-IMC-Counter-Not-Matching/m-p/1288832
UPDATE:
Please note that PCM output matches my IMC counter reads.
This is the relevant PCM output:
The values for columns READ, WRITE and IO are calculated based on UNC_IMC_DRAM_DATA_READS, UNC_IMC_DRAM_DATA_WRITES and UNC_IMC_DRAM_IO_REQUESTS, respectively. It seems that requests classified as IO will be either READ or WRITE. In other words, during the depicted one second interval, almost (because of the inaccuracy reported in the above-mentioned doc) 2.01GB of the 2.42GB READ and WRITE requests belong to IO. Based on this explanation, the above three columns seem consistent with each other.
The problem is that there still exists a LARGE gap between the IMC and PMC values!
The situation is the same when I boot in runlevel 1. The processes on the scheduler are one of swapper, kworker and migration. Disk IO is almost 85KB/s. I'm wondering what leads to such a (relatively) huge amount of IO. Is it possible to detect that (e.g., using a counter or a tool)?
UPDATE 2:
I think that there is something wrong with the IO column. It is always something in the range [1.99,2.01], regardless of the amount of load in the system!
UPDATE 3:
In runlevel 1, the average number of occurrences of the uops_retired.all event in a 1-second interval is 15,000,000. During the same period, the number of read requests recorded by the associated IMC counter is around 30,000,000. In other words, assuming that all memory accesses are directly caused by cpu instructions, for each retired micro-operation, there exists two memory accesses. This seems impossible specially concerning the fact that there exist multiple levels of caches. Therefore, in the idle scenario, perhaps, the read accesses are caused by IO.
Actually, it was mostly caused by the GPU device. This was the reason for exclusion from performance counters. Here is the relevant output for a sample execution of PCM on a relatively idle system with resolution 3840x2160 and refresh rate 60 using xrandr:
And this is for the situation with resolution 800x600 and the same refresh rate (i.e., 60):
As can be seen, changing screen resolution reduced read and IO traffic considerably (more than 100x!).
I'm writing a very simple program to calculate the factorial of a number.
Here it is:
import time
def factorial1(n):
fattoriale = 1
while (n > 0):
fattoriale = fattoriale * n
n = n - 1
return fattoriale
start_time = time.clock()
factorial1(v)
print float(time.clock() - start_time), "seconds"
The strange point (for me) are the results in term of execution time (on a value):
1° run: 0.000301 seconds
2° run: 0.000430 seconds
3° run: 0.000278 seconds
Why do you think it's so variable?
Does it has something to do with the float type approximation?
Thanks, Gianluca
On Unix based systems time.clock returns the CPU time, not the wall-clock time.
Your program is deterministic (even the print is) and on an ideal system should always run in the same amount of time. I believe that in your tests your program was interrupted and some interrupt handler was executed or the scheduler paused your process and gave the CPU to some other process. When your process is allowed to run again the CPU cache might have been filled by the other process, so the processor needs to load your code from memory into the cache again. This takes a small amount of time - which you see in your test.
For a good quantization of how fast your program is you should consider not calling factorial1 only once but thousands of times (or with greater input values). When your program runs for multiple seconds, then scheduling effects have less (relative) impact than in your test where you only tested for less than a millisecond.
It probably has a lot to do with sharing of resources. If your program runs as a separate process, it might have to contend for other processes running on your computer at the same time which are using resources like CPU and RAM. These resources are used by other processes as well so 'acquire' them in terms of concurrent terms will take variable times especially if there are some high-priority processes running parallel to it and other things like interupts may have higher priority.
As for your idea, from what I know, the approximation process should not take variable times as it runs a deterministic algorithm. However the approximation process again may have to contend for the resources.
In Vtune results what the numbers 0,1,2 (and 3) actually represent ?
What is the meaning of Blue bar over 0?
It's a histogram - each column represents the portion of time you spend while the variable (the one appearing below the graph) is at any given value.
The left one states that you spend roughly 1/3 of the time with 0 utilized logical CPUs (fully idle), and 2/3 of the time with 1 logical core operating. You never reach 2 simultaneously operating cores.
In the same manner, the right histogram says you spend ~25% of the time with zero active threads, and ~75% with one thread (there's a negligible portion with 2 threads).
Note that the total times are slightly different, and the portion of fully-idle time also varies a bit - if this is taken over the exact same run, then this discrepancy might be explained by the difference between the time when a core becomes active (waking up from a low power state), and the moment that the OS can schedule a thread to actually start running on it.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation
and naming things.
-- Phil Karlton
My app is reporting CPU time, and people reasonably want to know how much time this is out of, so they can compute % CPU utilized. My question is, what's the name for the wall clock time times the number of CPUs?
If you add up the total user, system, idle, etc. time for a system, you get the total wall clock time, times the number of CPUs. What's a good name for that? According to Wikipedia, CPU time is:
CPU time (or CPU usage, process time) is the amount of time for which
a central processing unit (CPU) was used for processing instructions
of a computer program, as opposed to, for example, waiting for
input/output (I/O) operations.
"total time" suggests just wall clock time, and doesn't connote that over a 10 second span, a four-cpu system would have 40 seconds of "total time."
Total Wall Clock Time of all CPUs
Naming things is hard, why waste a good 'un once you've found it ?
Aggregate time: 15 of 40 seconds.