RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1730107 - Hugepage data is incorrect
Summary: Hugepage data is incorrect
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: pcp
Version: 7.7
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: 7.9
Assignee: Nathan Scott
QA Contact: Jan Kurik
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1782202
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-07-15 20:48 UTC by Charles Haithcock
Modified: 2021-08-27 22:28 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: pcp-4.3.4
Doc Type: No Doc Update
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-09-29 19:24:55 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2020:3869 0 None None None 2020-09-29 19:25:25 UTC

Description Charles Haithcock 2019-07-15 20:48:41 UTC 
Description of problem:

pmrep is showing incorrect values for hugepages. 

From a customer's sosreport and pcp data: 

 $ grep HugePages_Total sosreport-<HOSTNAME>-02415112-2019-07-11-nflredr/proc/meminfo 
HugePages_Total:   49152

 $ pmrep mem.util.{hugepagesTotal,hugepagesFree,hugepagesRsvd,hugepagesSurp,hugepagesTotalBytes} mem.vmstat.nr_shmem_hugepages -a pcp/pmlogger/<HOSTNAME>/20190710.0.xz | head
  m.u.hugepagesTotal  m.u.hugepagesFree  m.u.hugepagesRsvd  m.u.hugepagesSurp  m.u.hugepagesTotalBytes  m.v.nr_shmem_hugepages
               count              count              count              count                     byte                   count
                 N/A                N/A                N/A                N/A                      N/A                     N/A
            50331648           26900480           26900480                  0          105553116266496                     N/A
            50331648           26900480           26900480                  0          105553116266496                     N/A
            50331648           26900480           26900480                  0          105553116266496                     N/A


From my own system:

 r7 # grep ^Huge /proc/meminfo 
HugePages_Total:     250
HugePages_Free:      250
HugePages_Rsvd:        0
HugePages_Surp:        0
Hugepagesize:       2048 kB

 r7 # pmrep mem.util.{hugepagesTotal,hugepagesFree,hugepagesRsvd,hugepagesSurp,hugepagesTotalBytes} mem.vmstat.nr_shmem_hugepages 
  m.u.hugepagesTotal  m.u.hugepagesFree  m.u.hugepagesRsvd  m.u.hugepagesSurp  m.u.hugepagesTotalBytes  m.v.nr_shmem_hugepages
               count              count              count              count                     byte                   count
              256000             256000                  0                  0             536870912000                     N/A
              256000             256000                  0                  0             536870912000                     N/A
              256000             256000                  0                  0             536870912000                     N/A
              256000             256000                  0                  0             536870912000                     N/A



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

From customer's sosreport: 

 $ grep pcp sosreport-e1eep2dmkldn17-02415112-2019-07-11-nflredr/installed-rpms 
pcp-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                                    Wed Jul 10 14:55:52 2019
pcp-conf-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                               Wed Jul 10 14:55:38 2019
pcp-doc-4.1.0-5.el7_6.noarch                                Wed Jul 10 14:55:55 2019
pcp-libs-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                               Wed Jul 10 14:55:38 2019
pcp-pmda-dm-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                            Wed Jul 10 14:55:39 2019
pcp-pmda-nfsclient-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                     Wed Jul 10 14:55:39 2019
pcp-selinux-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                            Wed Jul 10 14:55:39 2019
pcp-system-tools-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                       Wed Jul 10 14:55:54 2019
pcp-zeroconf-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                           Wed Jul 10 14:55:55 2019
python-pcp-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64                             Wed Jul 10 14:55:54 2019


And my own system :

 r7 # rpm -q pcp
pcp-4.1.0-5.el7_6.x86_64


How reproducible:

100%


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run a pmrep or pminfo -dtf command against the hugepage 
2.
3.

Actual results:

The hugepage count seems to be 1024x larger than it is supposed to be: 


50331648 / 1024
49152.00     <--- expected from customer sosreport


256000/1024
250.00       <--- expected from my system


Expected results:

Correct values


Additional info:

- This is seen in pmrep and pminfo so maybe something with the pmda?
- The mem.numa.util versions seem to be correct: 


 $ pmrep mem.numa.util.hugepagesTotal -a pcp/pmlogger/<HOSTNAME>.ffm.cms/20190710.0.xz | head
  m.n.u.hugepagesTotal
                 node0
                 count
                   N/A
                 49152        <--- expected
                 49152
                 49152


 r7 # pminfo mem.numa.util.hugepagesTotal -dtf

mem.numa.util.hugepagesTotal [per-node total count of hugepages]
    Data Type: 64-bit unsigned int  InDom: 60.19 0xf000013
    Semantics: instant  Units: count
    inst [0 or "node0"] value 250           <--- expected
Comment 2 Nathan Scott 2019-07-16 02:19:18 UTC 
Thanks for the detailed analysis Charles.  Yes, the values are off by a factor 1024 as a result of an assumption in proc_meminfo.c::refresh_proc_meminfo around line 115 which is assuming all values here need to be converted from kbytes to bytes (not so for the hugepages metrics).

I'll work on a fix today, get it resolved upstream and then propose it for 7.8.
Comment 3 Nathan Scott 2019-07-16 04:02:51 UTC 
commit 29092aa58df23fcc43f813d54b16a733d19f770c
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans>
Date:   Tue Jul 16 12:28:26 2019 +1000

    pmdalinux: fix hugepage metric value calculations
    
    The values for some of the Linux kernel hugepage metrics were
    being incorrectly multiplied by 1024.  This was due to a code
    assumption in proc_meminfo.c::refresh_proc_meminfo around line
    115, which was assuming all meminfo values needed conversion
    from kbytes to bytes - not so for these metrics.
    
    The fix involves removing this assumption (for all values from
    /proc/meminfo) and individually applying unit conversion where
    needed only.  Updated calculations are now reflected in qa/821.
    
    Resolves Red Hat BZ #1730107.
Comment 4 Charles Haithcock 2019-07-16 15:36:45 UTC 
(In reply to Nathan Scott from comment #2)
> Thanks for the detailed analysis Charles.  
... 
> I'll work on a fix today, get it resolved upstream and then propose it for
> 7.8.

You are so welcome, and thank you for the quick turnaround on this!
Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2020-09-29 19:24:55 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (Low: pcp security, bug fix, and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:3869
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.