Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Hot threads should filter out "uninteresting" thread stacks by default #8908

Closed
mikemccand opened this issue Dec 11, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@mikemccand
Copy link
Contributor

When I stare at a hot threads output, e.g. #8905, many of threads are clearly unimportant, because e.g. they are in parked in a lock under ThreadPoolExecutor.getTask, or inside "select" in Netty.

I think we should filter these out by default?

@dadoonet
Copy link
Member

+1. I am also wondering if someone looks at thread stack when it's less than 1ms of 500ms...

@bleskes
Copy link
Contributor

bleskes commented Dec 11, 2014

+1 to an optional, turned on by default, filtering of known stack traces which are useless. Potentially make this also dependent on thread names? i.e., search , index etc.

@nik9000
Copy link
Member

nik9000 commented Dec 11, 2014

For completeness sake #5952 is one of the primary reasons I've seen these threads show up. hot_threads in general can really overemphasize long running tasks like merge over shorter queries that just happen to jump to another thread. Its the price for hot_threads being low impact on a running cluster though.

@mikemccand mikemccand self-assigned this Dec 17, 2014
mikemccand added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 17, 2014
Add a new ignore_idle_threads boolean option (default true) to
/_nodes/hot_threads, to filter out threads in known idle places like
waiting on a socket select or on pulling the next task from an empty
queue.

Closes #8985

Closes #8908
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants