| --- | |
| title: Debugging performance issues in Go programs | |
| --- | |
| -- originally written by Dmitry Vyukov | |
| Let's assume you have a Go program and want to improve its performance. There | |
| are several tools available that can help with this task. These tools can help | |
| you to identify various types of hotspots (CPU, IO, memory), hotspots are the | |
| places that you need to concentrate on in order to significantly improve | |
| performance. However, another outcome is possible -- the tools can help you | |
| identify obvious performance defects in the program. For example, you prepare an | |
| SQL statement before each query while you could prepare it once at program | |
| startup. Another example is if an O(N^2) algorithm somehow slipped into where an | |
| obvious O(N) exists and is expected. In order to identify such cases you need to | |
| sanity check what you see in profiles. For example for the first case | |
| significant time spent in SQL statement preparation would be the red flag. | |
| It's also important to understand various bounding factors for performance. For | |
| example, if the program communicates via 100 Mbps network link and it is already | |
| utilizes >90Mbps, there is not much you can do with the program to improve its | |
| performance. There are similar bounding factors for disk IO, memory consumption | |
| and computational tasks. With that in mind we can look at the available tools. | |
| Note: The tools can interfere with each other. For example, precise memory | |
| profiling skews CPU profiles, goroutine blocking profiling affects scheduler | |
| trace, etc. Use tools in isolation to get more precise info. | |
| ## CPU Profiler | |
| Go runtime contains built-in CPU profiler, which shows what functions consume | |
| what percent of CPU time. There are 3 ways you can get access to it: | |
| 1. The simplest one is -cpuprofile flag of 'go test' | |
| (https://pkg.go.dev/cmd/go/#hdr-Description_of_testing_flags) command. For | |
| example, the following command: | |
| $ go test -run=none -bench=ClientServerParallel4 -cpuprofile=cprof net/http | |
| will profile the given benchmark and write CPU profile into 'cprof' file. | |
| Then: | |
| $ go tool pprof --text http.test cprof | |
| will print a list of the hottest functions. | |
| There are several output types available, the most useful ones are: | |
| `--text`, `--web` and `--list`. Run `go tool pprof` to get the complete | |
| list. The obvious drawback of this option is that it works only for tests. | |
| 2. [net/http/pprof](https://pkg.go.dev/net/http/pprof): This is the ideal | |
| solution for network servers. You merely need to import `net/http/pprof`, | |
| and collect profiles with: | |
| $ go tool pprof --text mybin http://myserver:6060:/debug/pprof/profile | |
| 3. Manual profile collection. You need to import | |
| [runtime/pprof](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/pprof/) and add the following | |
| code to main function: | |
| if *flagCpuprofile != "" { | |
| f, err := os.Create(*flagCpuprofile) | |
| if err != nil { | |
| log.Fatal(err) | |
| } | |
| pprof.StartCPUProfile(f) | |
| defer pprof.StopCPUProfile() | |
| } | |
| The profile will be written to the specified file, visualize it the same way | |
| as in the first option. | |
| Here is an example of a profile visualized with `--web` option: | |
| [cpu_profile.png] | |
| You can investigate a single function with `--list=funcname` option. For | |
| example, the following profile shows that the time was spent in the `append` | |
| function: | |
| . . 93: func (bp *buffer) WriteRune(r rune) error { | |
| . . 94: if r < utf8.RuneSelf { | |
| 5 5 95: *bp = append(*bp, byte(r)) | |
| . . 96: return nil | |
| . . 97: } | |
| . . 98: | |
| . . 99: b := *bp | |
| . . 100: n := len(b) | |
| . . 101: for n+utf8.UTFMax > cap(b) { | |
| . . 102: b = append(b, 0) | |
| . . 103: } | |
| . . 104: w := utf8.EncodeRune(b[n:n+utf8.UTFMax], r) | |
| . . 105: *bp = b[:n+w] | |
| . . 106: return nil | |
| . . 107: } | |
| There are also 3 special entries that the profiler uses when it can't unwind | |
| stack: GC, System and ExternalCode. GC means time spent during garbage | |
| collection, see Memory Profiler and Garbage Collector Trace sections below for | |
| optimization suggestions. System means time spent in goroutine scheduler, stack | |
| management code and other auxiliary runtime code. ExternalCode means time spent | |
| in native dynamic libraries. | |
| Here are some hints with respect to how to interpret what you see in the | |
| profile. | |
| If you see lots of time spent in `runtime.mallocgc` function, the program | |
| potentially makes excessive amount of small memory allocations. The profile will | |
| tell you where the allocations are coming from. See the memory profiler section | |
| for suggestions on how to optimize this case. | |
| If lots of time is spent in channel operations, sync.Mutex code and other | |
| synchronization primitives or System component, the program probably suffers | |
| from contention. Consider to restructure program to eliminate frequently | |
| accessed shared resources. Common techniques for this include | |
| sharding/partitioning, local buffering/batching and copy-on-write technique. | |
| If lots of time is spent in `syscall.Read/Write`, the program potentially makes | |
| excessive amount of small reads and writes. Bufio wrappers around os.File or | |
| net.Conn can help in this case. | |
| If lots of time is spent in GC component, the program either allocates too many | |
| transient objects or heap size is very small so garbage collections happen too | |
| frequently. See Garbage Collector Tracer and Memory Profiler sections for | |
| optimization suggestions. | |
| Note: For darwin CPU profiler currently only [works on El Capitan or newer](https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=6047). | |
| Note: On windows you need to install Cygwin, Perl and Graphviz to generate | |
| svg/web profiles. | |
| ## Memory Profiler | |
| Memory profiler shows what functions allocate heap memory. You can collect it in | |
| similar ways as CPU profile: with `go test --memprofile` | |
| (https://pkg.go.dev/cmd/go/#hdr-Description_of_testing_flags), with | |
| [net/http/pprof](https://pkg.go.dev/net/http/pprof) via | |
| http://myserver:6060:/debug/pprof/heap or by calling | |
| [runtime/pprof.WriteHeapProfile](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/pprof/#WriteHeapProfile). | |
| You can visualize only allocations live at the time of profile collection | |
| (`--inuse_space flag to pprof`, default), or all allocations happened since | |
| program start (`--alloc_space` flag to `pprof`). The former is useful for | |
| profiles collected with net/http/pprof on live applications, the latter is | |
| useful for profiles collected at program end (otherwise you will see almost | |
| empty profile). | |
| Note: the memory profiler is sampling, that is, it collects information only | |
| about some subset of memory allocations. Probability of sampling an object is | |
| proportional to its size. You can change the sampling rate with go test | |
| `--memprofilerate` flag, or by setting `runtime.MemProfileRate` variable at | |
| program startup. The rate of 1 will lead to collection of information about all | |
| allocations, but it can slow down execution. The default sampling rate is 1 | |
| sample per 512KB of allocated memory. | |
| You can also visualize number of bytes allocated or number of objects allocated | |
| (`--inuse/alloc_space` and `--inuse/alloc_objects` flags, respectively). The | |
| profiler tends to sample larger objects during profiling more. But it's | |
| important to understand that large objects affect memory consumption and GC | |
| time, while large number of tiny allocations affects execution speed (and GC | |
| time to some degree as well). So it may be useful to look at both. | |
| Objects can be persistent or transient. If you have several large persistent | |
| objects allocated at program start, they will be most likely sampled by the | |
| profiler (because they are large). Such objects do affect memory consumption and | |
| GC time, but they do not affect normal execution speed (no memory management | |
| operations happen on them). On the other hand if you have large number of | |
| objects with very short life durations, they can be barely represented in the | |
| profile (if you use the default `--inuse_space mode`). But they do significantly | |
| affect execution speed, because they are constantly allocated and freed. So, | |
| once again, it may be useful to look at both types of objects. So, generally, if | |
| you want to reduce memory consumption, you need to look at `--inuse_space` | |
| profile collected during normal program operation. If you want to improve | |
| execution speed, look at `--alloc_objects` profile collected after significant | |
| running time or at program end. | |
| There are several flags that control reporting granularity. `--functions` makes | |
| pprof report on function level (default). `--lines` makes pprof report on source | |
| line level, which is useful if hot functions allocate on different lines. And | |
| there are also `--addresses` and `--files` for exact instruction address and | |
| file level, respectively. | |
| There is a useful option for the memory profile -- you can look at it right in | |
| the browser (provided that you imported `net/http/pprof`). If you open | |
| http://myserver:6060/debug/pprof/heap?debug=1 you must see the heap profile | |
| along the lines of: | |
| heap profile: 4: 266528 [123: 11284472] @ heap/1048576 | |
| 1: 262144 [4: 376832] @ 0x28d9f 0x2a201 0x2a28a 0x2624d 0x26188 0x94ca3 0x94a0b 0x17add6 0x17ae9f 0x1069d3 0xfe911 0xf0a3e 0xf0d22 0x21a70 | |
| # 0x2a201 cnew+0xc1 runtime/malloc.goc:718 | |
| # 0x2a28a runtime.cnewarray+0x3a runtime/malloc.goc:731 | |
| # 0x2624d makeslice1+0x4d runtime/slice.c:57 | |
| # 0x26188 runtime.makeslice+0x98 runtime/slice.c:38 | |
| # 0x94ca3 bytes.makeSlice+0x63 bytes/buffer.go:191 | |
| # 0x94a0b bytes.(*Buffer).ReadFrom+0xcb bytes/buffer.go:163 | |
| # 0x17add6 io/ioutil.readAll+0x156 io/ioutil/ioutil.go:32 | |
| # 0x17ae9f io/ioutil.ReadAll+0x3f io/ioutil/ioutil.go:41 | |
| # 0x1069d3 godoc/vfs.ReadFile+0x133 godoc/vfs/vfs.go:44 | |
| # 0xfe911 godoc.func·023+0x471 godoc/meta.go:80 | |
| # 0xf0a3e godoc.(*Corpus).updateMetadata+0x9e godoc/meta.go:101 | |
| # 0xf0d22 godoc.(*Corpus).refreshMetadataLoop+0x42 godoc/meta.go:141 | |
| 2: 4096 [2: 4096] @ 0x28d9f 0x29059 0x1d252 0x1d450 0x106993 0xf1225 0xe1489 0xfbcad 0x21a70 | |
| # 0x1d252 newdefer+0x112 runtime/panic.c:49 | |
| # 0x1d450 runtime.deferproc+0x10 runtime/panic.c:132 | |
| # 0x106993 godoc/vfs.ReadFile+0xf3 godoc/vfs/vfs.go:43 | |
| # 0xf1225 godoc.(*Corpus).parseFile+0x75 godoc/parser.go:20 | |
| # 0xe1489 godoc.(*treeBuilder).newDirTree+0x8e9 godoc/dirtrees.go:108 | |
| # 0xfbcad godoc.func·002+0x15d godoc/dirtrees.go:100 | |
| The numbers in the beginning of each entry `("1: 262144 [4: 376832]")` represent | |
| number of currently live objects, amount of memory occupied by live objects, | |
| total number of allocations and amount of memory occupied by all allocations, | |
| respectively. | |
| Optimizations are usually application-specific, but here are some common | |
| suggestions. | |
| 1. Combine objects into larger objects. For example, replace `*bytes.Buffer` | |
| struct member with `bytes.Buffer` (you can preallocate buffer for writing by | |
| calling `bytes.Buffer.Grow` later). This will reduce number of memory | |
| allocations (faster) and also reduce pressure on garbage collector (faster | |
| garbage collections). | |
| 2. Local variables that escape from their declaration scope get promoted into | |
| heap allocations. Compiler generally can't prove that several variables have | |
| the same life time, so it allocates each such variable separately. So you | |
| can use the above advise for local variables as well. For example, replace: | |
| for k, v := range m { | |
| k, v := k, v // copy for capturing by the goroutine | |
| go func() { | |
| // use k and v | |
| }() | |
| } | |
| with: | |
| for k, v := range m { | |
| x := struct{ k, v string }{k, v} // copy for capturing by the goroutine | |
| go func() { | |
| // use x.k and x.v | |
| }() | |
| } | |
| This replaces two memory allocations with a single allocation. However, this | |
| optimization usually negatively affects code readability, so use it | |
| reasonably. | |
| 3. A special case of allocation combining is slice array preallocation. If you | |
| know a typical size of the slice, you can preallocate a backing array for it | |
| as follows: | |
| type X struct { | |
| buf []byte | |
| bufArray [16]byte // Buf usually does not grow beyond 16 bytes. | |
| } | |
| func MakeX() *X { | |
| x := &X{} | |
| // Preinitialize buf with the backing array. | |
| x.buf = x.bufArray[:0] | |
| return x | |
| } | |
| 4. If possible use smaller data types. For example, use `int8` instead of | |
| `int`. | |
| 5. Objects that do not contain any pointers (note that strings, slices, maps | |
| and chans contain implicit pointers), are not scanned by garbage collector. | |
| For example, a 1GB byte slice virtually does not affect garbage collection | |
| time. So if you remove pointers from actively used objects, it can | |
| positively impact garbage collection time. Some possibilities are: replace | |
| pointers with indices, split object into two parts one of which does not | |
| contain pointers. | |
| 6. Use freelists to reuse transient objects and reduce number of allocations. | |
| Standard library contains [sync.Pool](http://tip.golang.org/pkg/sync/#Pool) | |
| type that allows to reuse the same object several times in between garbage | |
| collections. However, be aware that, as any manual memory management scheme, | |
| incorrect use of sync.Pool can lead to use-after-free bugs. | |
| You can also use the Garbage Collector Trace (see below) to get some insights | |
| into memory issues. | |
| TODO(dvyukov): mention that stats are updated in a deferred way: "Memprof stats | |
| are updated in a deferred way. This is required in order to present a consistent | |
| picture in the situation when allocs are coming continuously and frees are | |
| coming in batches afterwards. Several consecutive GCs push the update pipeline | |
| forward. That's what you observe. So if you profile a live server then any | |
| sample will give you a consistent snapshot. However, if the program completes | |
| some activity and you want to collect the snapshot after this activity, then you | |
| need to execute 2 or 3 GCs before the collection." | |
| ## Blocking Profiler | |
| The blocking profiler shows where goroutine block waiting on synchronization | |
| primitives (including timer channels). You can collect it in similar ways as CPU | |
| profile: with `go test --blockprofile` | |
| (https://pkg.go.dev/cmd/go/#hdr-Description_of_testing_flags), with | |
| [net/http/pprof](https://pkg.go.dev/net/http/pprof) via | |
| http://myserver:6060:/debug/pprof/block or by calling | |
| [runtime/pprof.Lookup("block").WriteTo](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/pprof/#Profile.WriteTo). | |
| But there is significant caveat -- the blocking profiler is not enabled by | |
| default. `go test --blockprofile` will enable it for you automatically. However, | |
| if you use `net/http/pprof` or `runtime/pprof`, you need to enable it manually | |
| (otherwise the profile will be empty). To enable the blocking profiler call | |
| [runtime.SetBlockProfileRate](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/#SetBlockProfileRate). | |
| SetBlockProfileRate controls the fraction of goroutine blocking events that are | |
| reported in the blocking profile. The profiler aims to sample an average of one | |
| blocking event per the specified amount of nanoseconds spent blocked. To include | |
| every blocking event in the profile, set the rate to 1. | |
| If a function contains several blocking operations and it's not obvious which | |
| one leads to blocking, use `--lines` flag to pprof. | |
| Note that not all blocking is bad. When a goroutine blocks, the underlying | |
| worker thread simply switches to another goroutine. So blocking in the | |
| cooperative Go environment is very different from blocking on a mutex in a | |
| non-cooperative systems (e.g. typical C++ or Java threading libraries, where | |
| blocking leads to thread idling and expensive thread context switches). To give | |
| you some feeling, let's consider some examples. | |
| Blocking on a time.Ticker is usually OK. If a goroutine blocks on a Ticker for | |
| 10 seconds, you will see 10 seconds of blocking in the profile, which is | |
| perfectly fine. Blocking on `sync.WaitGroup` is frequently OK. For example, is a | |
| task takes 10 seconds, the goroutine waiting on a WaitGroup for completion will | |
| account for 10 seconds of blocking in the profile. Blocking on sync.Cond may or | |
| may not be OK, depending on the situation. Consumer blocking on a channel | |
| suggests slow producers or lack of work. Producer blocking on a channel suggests | |
| that consumers are slower, but this is frequently OK. Blocking on a | |
| channel-based semaphore shows how much goroutines are gated on the semaphore. | |
| Blocking on a sync.Mutex or sync.RWMutex is usually bad. You can use `--ignore` | |
| flag to pprof to exclude known uninteresting blocking from a profile during | |
| visualization. | |
| Blocking of goroutines can lead to two negative consequences: | |
| 1. Program does not scale with processors due to lack of work. Scheduler Trace | |
| can help to identify this case. | |
| 2. Excessive goroutine blocking/unblocking consumes CPU time. CPU Profiler can | |
| help to identify this case (look at the System component). | |
| Here are some common suggestions that can help to reduce goroutine blocking: | |
| 1. Use sufficiently buffered channels in producer-consumer scenarios. | |
| Unbuffered channels substantially limit available parallelism in the | |
| program. | |
| 2. Use `sync.RWMutex` instead of `sync.Mutex` for read-mostly workloads. | |
| Readers never block other readers in `sync.RWMutex`, even on implementation | |
| level. | |
| 3. In some cases it's possible to remove mutexes entirely by using | |
| copy-on-write technique. If the protected data structure is modified | |
| infrequently and it's feasible to make copies of it, then it can be updated | |
| as follows: | |
| type Config struct { | |
| Routes map[string]net.Addr | |
| Backends []net.Addr | |
| } | |
| var config atomic.Value // actual type is *Config | |
| // Worker goroutines use this function to obtain the current config. | |
| // UpdateConfig must be called at least once before this func. | |
| func CurrentConfig() *Config { | |
| return config.Load().(*Config) | |
| } | |
| // Background goroutine periodically creates a new Config object | |
| // as sets it as current using this function. | |
| func UpdateConfig(cfg *Config) { | |
| config.Store(cfg) | |
| } | |
| This pattern prevents the writer from blocking readers during update. | |
| 4. Partitioning is another general technique for reducing contention/blocking | |
| on shared mutable data structures. Below is an example of how to partition a | |
| hashmap: | |
| type Partition struct { | |
| sync.RWMutex | |
| m map[string]string | |
| } | |
| const partCount = 64 | |
| var m [partCount]Partition | |
| func Find(k string) string { | |
| idx := hash(k) % partCount | |
| part := &m[idx] | |
| part.RLock() | |
| v := part.m[k] | |
| part.RUnlock() | |
| return v | |
| } | |
| 5. Local caching and batching of updates can help to reduce contention on | |
| un-partitionable data structures. Below you can see how to batch sends to a | |
| channel: | |
| const CacheSize = 16 | |
| type Cache struct { | |
| buf [CacheSize]int | |
| pos int | |
| } | |
| func Send(c chan [CacheSize]int, cache *Cache, value int) { | |
| cache.buf[cache.pos] = value | |
| cache.pos++ | |
| if cache.pos == CacheSize { | |
| c <- cache.buf | |
| cache.pos = 0 | |
| } | |
| } | |
| This technique is not limited to channels. It can be used to batch updates | |
| to a map, batch allocations, etc. | |
| 6. Use [sync.Pool](http://tip.golang.org/pkg/sync/#Pool) for freelists instead | |
| of chan-based or mutex-protected freelists. sync.Pool uses smart techniques | |
| internally to reduce blocking. | |
| ## Goroutine Profiler | |
| The goroutine profiler simply gives you current stacks of all live goroutines in | |
| the process. It can be handy to debug load balancing issues (see Scheduler Trace | |
| section below), or to debug deadlocks. The profile makes sense only for a | |
| running app, so go test does not expose it. You can collect the profile with | |
| [net/http/pprof](https://pkg.go.dev/net/http/pprof) via | |
| http://myserver:6060:/debug/pprof/goroutine, and visualize it to svg/pdf or by | |
| calling | |
| [runtime/pprof.Lookup("goroutine").WriteTo](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/pprof/#Profile.WriteTo). | |
| But the most useful way is to type | |
| http://myserver:6060:/debug/pprof/goroutine?debug=2 in your browser, which will | |
| give you symbolized stacks similar to what you see when a program crashes. Note | |
| that goroutines in "syscall" state consume an OS thread, other goroutines do not | |
| (except for goroutines that called runtime.LockOSThread, which is, | |
| unfortunately, not visible in the profile). Note that goroutines in "IO wait" | |
| state also do not consume threads, they are parked on non-blocking network | |
| poller (which uses epoll/kqueue/GetQueuedCompletionStatus to unpark goroutines | |
| later). | |
| ## Garbage Collector Trace | |
| Aside from the profiling tools, there is another kind of tools available -- | |
| tracers. They allow to trace garbage collections, memory allocator and goroutine | |
| scheduler state. To enable the garbage collector (GC) trace, run the program | |
| with `GODEBUG=gctrace=1` environment variable: | |
| $ GODEBUG=gctrace=1 ./myserver | |
| Then the program will print output similar to the following during execution: | |
| gc9(2): 12+1+744+8 us, 2 -> 10 MB, 108615 (593983-485368) objects, 4825/3620/0 sweeps, 0(0) handoff, 6(91) steal, 16/1/0 yields | |
| gc10(2): 12+6769+767+3 us, 1 -> 1 MB, 4222 (593983-589761) objects, 4825/0/1898 sweeps, 0(0) handoff, 6(93) steal, 16/10/2 yields | |
| gc11(2): 799+3+2050+3 us, 1 -> 69 MB, 831819 (1484009-652190) objects, 4825/691/0 sweeps, 0(0) handoff, 5(105) steal, 16/1/0 yields | |
| Let's consider the meaning of these numbers. One line per GC is printed. The | |
| first number ("gc9") is the number of GC (this is the 9-th GC since program | |
| start). The number in parens ("(2)") is the number of worker threads | |
| participated in the GC. The next 4 numbers ("12+1+744+8 us") mean | |
| stop-the-world, sweeping, marking and waiting for worker threads to finish, in | |
| microseconds, respectively. The next 2 numbers ("2 -> 10 MB") mean size of live | |
| heap after the previous GC and full heap size (including garbage) before the | |
| current GC. The next 3 numbers ("108615 (593983-485368) objects") are total | |
| number of objects in heap (including garbage) and total number of memory | |
| allocation and free operations. The next 3 numbers ("4825/3620/0 sweeps") | |
| characterize sweep phase (of the previous GC): there were total 4825 memory | |
| spans, 3620 were swept on demand or in background, 0 were swept during | |
| stop-the-world phase (the rest were unused spans). The next 4 numbers ("0(0) | |
| handoff, 6(91) steal") characterize load balancing during parallel mark phase: | |
| there were 0 object handoff operations (0 objects were handoff), and 6 steal | |
| operations (91 objects were stolen). The last 3 numbers ("16/1/0 yields") | |
| characterize effectiveness of parallel mark phase: there were total of 17 yield | |
| operations during waiting for another thread. | |
| The GC is [mark-and-sweep | |
| type](http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus5/html/page424.html). Total GC can be | |
| expressed as: | |
| Tgc = Tseq + Tmark + Tsweep | |
| where Tseq is time to stop user goroutines and some preparation activities | |
| (usually small); Tmark is heap marking time, marking happens when all user | |
| goroutines are stopped, and thus can significantly affect latency of processing; | |
| Tsweep is heap sweeping time, sweeping generally happens concurrently with | |
| normal program execution, and so is not so critical for latency. | |
| Marking time can be approximately expressed as: | |
| Tmark = C1*Nlive + C2*MEMlive_ptr + C3*Nlive_ptr | |
| where Nlive is the number of live objects in the heap during GC, `MEMlive_ptr` | |
| is the amount of memory occupied by live objects with pointers, `Nlive_ptr` is | |
| the number of pointers in live objects. | |
| Sweeping time can be approximately expressed as: | |
| Tsweep = C4*MEMtotal + C5*MEMgarbage | |
| where `MEMtotal` is the total amount of heap memory, `MEMgarbage` is the amount | |
| of garbage in the heap. | |
| Next GC happens after the program has allocated an extra amount of memory | |
| proportional to the amount already in use. The proportion is controlled by GOGC | |
| environment variable (100 by default). If GOGC=100 and the program is using 4M | |
| of heap memory, runtime will trigger GC again when the program gets to 8M. This | |
| keeps the GC cost in linear proportion to the allocation cost. Adjusting GOGC | |
| changes the linear constant and also the amount of extra memory used. | |
| Only sweeping depends on total size of the heap, and sweeping happens | |
| concurrently with normal program execution. So it can make sense to set GOGC to | |
| a higher value (200, 300, 500, etc) if you can afford extra memory consumption. | |
| For example, GOGC=300 can reduce garbage collection overhead by up to 2 times | |
| while keeping latencies the same (at the cost of 2 times larger heap). | |
| GC is parallel and generally scales well with hardware parallelism. So it can | |
| make sense to set GOMAXPROCS to higher value even for sequential programs just | |
| to speed up garbage collections. However, note that number of garbage collector | |
| threads is currently bounded by 8. | |
| ## Memory Allocator Trace | |
| Memory allocator traces simply dumps all memory allocation and free operations | |
| onto console. It's enabled with GODEBUG=allocfreetrace=1 environment variable. | |
| The output looks along the lines of: | |
| tracealloc(0xc208062500, 0x100, array of parse.Node) | |
| goroutine 16 [running]: | |
| runtime.mallocgc(0x100, 0x3eb7c1, 0x0) | |
| runtime/malloc.goc:190 +0x145 fp=0xc2080b39f8 | |
| runtime.growslice(0x31f840, 0xc208060700, 0x8, 0x8, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0) | |
| runtime/slice.goc:76 +0xbb fp=0xc2080b3a90 | |
| text/template/parse.(*Tree).parse(0xc2080820e0, 0xc208023620, 0x0, 0x0) | |
| text/template/parse/parse.go:289 +0x549 fp=0xc2080b3c50 | |
| ... | |
| tracefree(0xc208002d80, 0x120) | |
| goroutine 16 [running]: | |
| runtime.MSpan_Sweep(0x73b080) | |
| runtime/mgc0.c:1880 +0x514 fp=0xc20804b8f0 | |
| runtime.MCentral_CacheSpan(0x69c858) | |
| runtime/mcentral.c:48 +0x2b5 fp=0xc20804b920 | |
| runtime.MCache_Refill(0x737000, 0xc200000012) | |
| runtime/mcache.c:78 +0x119 fp=0xc20804b950 | |
| ... | |
| The trace contains address of the memory block, size, type, goroutine id and the | |
| stack trace. It's probably more useful for debugging, but can give very | |
| fine-grained info for allocation optimizations as well. | |
| ## Scheduler Trace | |
| Scheduler trace can provide insights into dynamic behavior of the goroutine | |
| scheduler and allow to debug load balancing and scalability issues. To enable | |
| the scheduler trace trace, run the program with GODEBUG=schedtrace=1000 | |
| environment variable (the value means period of output, in ms, in this case it's | |
| once per second): | |
| $ GODEBUG=schedtrace=1000 ./myserver | |
| Then the program will print output similar to the following during execution: | |
| SCHED 1004ms: gomaxprocs=4 idleprocs=0 threads=11 idlethreads=4 runqueue=8 [0 1 0 3] | |
| SCHED 2005ms: gomaxprocs=4 idleprocs=0 threads=11 idlethreads=5 runqueue=6 [1 5 4 0] | |
| SCHED 3008ms: gomaxprocs=4 idleprocs=0 threads=11 idlethreads=4 runqueue=10 [2 2 2 1] | |
| The first number ("1004ms") is time since program start. Gomaxprocs is the | |
| current value of GOMAXPROCS. Idleprocs is the number of idling processors (the | |
| rest are executing Go code). Threads is the total number of worker threads | |
| created by the scheduler (threads can be in 3 states: execute Go code | |
| (gomaxprocs-idleprocs), execute syscalls/cgocalls or idle). Idlethreads is the | |
| number of idling worker threads. Runqueue is the length of global queue with | |
| runnable goroutines. The numbers in square brackets ("[0 1 0 3]") are lengths of | |
| per-processor queues with runnable goroutines. Sum of lengths of global and | |
| local queues represents the total number of goroutines available for execution. | |
| Note: You can combine any of the tracers as | |
| GODEBUG=gctrace=1,allocfreetrace=1,schedtrace=1000. | |
| Note: There is also detailed scheduler trace, which you can enable with | |
| GODEBUG=schedtrace=1000,scheddetail=1. It prints detailed info about every | |
| goroutine, worker thread and processor. We won't describe its format here as | |
| it's mainly useful for scheduler developers; but you can find details in | |
| [src/pkg/runtime/proc.c](https://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/src/pkg/runtime/proc.c). | |
| The scheduler trace is useful when a program does not scale linearly with | |
| GOMAXPROCS and/or does not consume 100% of CPU time. The ideal situation is when | |
| all processors are busy executing Go code, number of threads is reasonable, | |
| there is plenty of work in all queues and the work is reasonably evenly | |
| distributed: | |
| gomaxprocs=8 idleprocs=0 threads=40 idlethreads=5 runqueue=10 [20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20] | |
| A bad situation is when something of the above does not hold. For example the | |
| following sample demonstrates shortage of work to keep all processors busy: | |
| gomaxprocs=8 idleprocs=6 threads=40 idlethreads=30 runqueue=0 [0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0] | |
| Note: use OS-provided means to measure actual CPU utilization as the ultimate | |
| characteristic. On Unix family of operating system it is top command; on Windows | |
| it is Task Manager. | |
| You can use the goroutine profiler to understand where goroutines block in the | |
| case of work shortage. Note that load imbalance is not ultimately bad as long as | |
| all processors are busy, it will just cause some moderate load balancing | |
| overheads. | |
| ## Memory Statistics | |
| Go runtime exposes coarse-grained memory statistics via | |
| [runtime.ReadMemStats](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/#ReadMemStats) function. | |
| The statistics are also exposed via net/http/pprof at the bottom of | |
| http://myserver:6060/debug/pprof/heap?debug=1. The statistics are described | |
| [here](https://pkg.go.dev/runtime/#MemStats). Some of the interesting fields | |
| are: | |
| 1. HeapAlloc - current heap size. | |
| 2. HeapSys - total heap size. | |
| 3. HeapObjects - total number of objects in the heap. | |
| 4. HeapReleased - amount of memory released to the OS; runtime releases to the | |
| OS memory unused for 5 minutes, you can force this process with | |
| runtime/debug.FreeOSMemory. | |
| 5. Sys - total amount of memory allocated from OS. | |
| 6. Sys-HeapReleased - effective memory consumption of the program. | |
| 7. StackSys - memory consumed for goroutine stacks (note that some stacks are | |
| allocated from heap and are not accounted here, unfortunately there is no | |
| way to get total size of stacks | |
| (https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=7468)). | |
| 8. MSpanSys/MCacheSys/BuckHashSys/GCSys/OtherSys - amount of memory allocated | |
| by runtime for various auxiliary purposes; they are generally not | |
| interesting, unless they are too high. | |
| 9. PauseNs - durations of last garbage collections. | |
| ## Heap Dumper | |
| The last available tool is heap dumper, it can write state of the whole heap | |
| into a file for future exploration. It can be useful for identifying memory | |
| leaks and getting insights into program memory consumption. | |
| First, you need to write the dump using | |
| [runtime/debug.WriteHeapDump](http://tip.golang.org/pkg/runtime/debug/#WriteHeapDump) | |
| function: | |
| f, err := os.Create("heapdump") | |
| if err != nil { ... } | |
| debug.WriteHeapDump(f.Fd()) | |
| Then you can either render it to a dot file with graphical representation of the | |
| heap or convert it to hprof format. To render it to a dot file: | |
| $ go get github.com/randall77/hprof/dumptodot | |
| $ dumptodot heapdump mybinary > heap.dot | |
| and open `heap.dot` with Graphviz. | |
| To convert it to `hprof` format: | |
| $ go get github.com/randall77/hprof/dumptohprof | |
| $ dumptohprof heapdump heap.hprof | |
| $ jhat heap.hprof | |
| and navigate your browser to http://myserver:7000. | |
| ## Concluding Remarks | |
| Optimization is an open problem, there are simple recipes that you can use to | |
| improve performance. Sometimes optimization requires complete re-architecture of | |
| the program. But we hope that the tools will be a valuable addition to your | |
| toolbox, that you can use to at least analyze and understand what happens. | |
| [Profiling Go Programs](https://go.dev/blog/profiling-go-programs) is a good | |
| tutorial on usage of CPU and memory profilers to optimize a simple program. |