Fwd: Any way to find the network usage by a process?
Mike Mason
mmlnx@us.ibm.com
Thu Oct 5 23:28:00 GMT 2006
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Mike Mason <mmlnx@us.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> Here's a variation of Jose's script that uses the networking tapset
>> and prints top-like output for transmits and receives. [...]
>
> Thanks for posting it to the systemtap wiki.
>
> Some minor style suggestions follow:
>
>> [...]
>> ifxmit_p[pid(), dev_name] ++
>> ifxmit_b[pid(), dev_name] += length
>
> These could be collapsed into a single statistics-aggregate array:
> # ifxmit[pid(), dev_name] <<< length
> Then the printing routine would use @count(ifxmit[...]) and @sum(ifxmit[...])
> to extract the two values. Same of course for ifrecv.
I tried that and got the following output:
PID UID DEV XMIT_PK RECV_PK XMIT_KB RECV_KB COMMAND
0 0 eth0 9 10 486 672 swapper
ERROR: empty aggregate near identifier 'execname' at nettop.stp:35:4
WARNING: Number of errors: 1, skipped probes: 0
Apparently using @sum on empty aggregates isn't allowed. I expected 0's to
be returned. The only way to avoid the error is use @sum only if @count >
0, which makes the printf too complex in my opinion.
>
>> execname[pid()] = execname()
>> user[pid()] = uid()
>> ifdevs[pid(), dev_name] = dev_name
>
> Calling pid() so many times is worse than calling it once and caching
> the result in a local variable ("p = pid()").
Agreed. I'll change that.
>
> The way that the script tracks pid-to-uid and pid-to-execname mappings
> is not bad, though if that part were moved to new probes on fork or
> exec, it would allow the network-related probes to run concurrently on
> an SMP without fighting over locks.
But that would only catch processes created after the script starts, correct?
- Mike
>
>
> - FChE
More information about the Systemtap
mailing list