Hi Lakshya,
On 3/11/25 12:25 PM, Gour DEV wrote:
> Hi, Kienan
>
> here is the requested output
>
> root@localhost:~# top -b -n 1 | grep lttng
> 4841 root 20 0 11.5g 11.0g 11.0g S 5.9 35.4 8:39.93
> lttng-c+
> 4824 root 20 0 1098824 26456 5380 S 0.0 0.1 0:07.25
> lttng-s+
> 4825 root 20 0 48872 2188 1012 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00
> lttng-r+
> 4843 root 20 0 3680 1160 816 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.23
This top output for `localhost` seems very different than the output for
`localhost` in your previous message.
> lttng-r+
> root@localhost:~# nrpco
> bash: nrpco: command not found
> root@localhost:~# nproc
> 16
> root@localhost:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible
> 0-15
>
You indicated the bookworm machine has 32 cores, this is showing 16. If
you're comparing a 16 core machine to a 32 core machine, it is very
normal that the memory usage is higher on the 32 core machine.
>
> Most of the process are running as asorcs user but some are running
as root.
So you have two users with instrumented applications.
Given the discrepancies in the information provided I'm finding it a bit
hard to understand what you're looking at.
In general, a channel's shared memory footprint can be estimated with[1]:
(nSubbuf * subbufSize) * (nCPUs + 1 iff snapshot mode is enabled) *
(nUIDs or nPIDs)
Note that the sub-buffer sizes you are using get rounded to the nearest
larger power of 2. See [2].
thanks,
kienan
[1]: https://lttng.org/docs/v2.13/#doc-channel-buffering-schemes
[2]:
https://lttng.org/man/1/lttng-enable-channel/v2.13/#doc-opt--subbuf-size
