From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2056 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2010 23:36:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2046 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Dec 2010 23:36:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:36:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 32052 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2010 23:36:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 31 Dec 2010 23:36:10 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Vyacheslav Egorov Subject: Re: JIT interface slowness Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:36:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb@sourceware.org References: <201012312222.54063.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012312336.08222.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Friday 31 December 2010 23:11:55, Vyacheslav Egorov wrote: > > If your JIT runs on a separate thread, and pausing just that > > thread doesn't block all others immediately, you could try > > running gdb in non-stop mode. > > > > I thought you said that hitting __jit_debug_register_code stops the > world i.e. stops all threads. I did, and it does, in all-stop mode, which is the gdb default mode. There's a new-ish mode (called the non-stop mode), where gdb does _not_ stop all your threads whenever a breakpoint is hit --- only the particular thread that hit the breakpoint. (There's a chapter about it in the manual). Not all your users will want to enable this mode. And most frontends don't know about it either, so, it's not really a "fix" for everyone, I guess. > > What was the cost for a first registrations? > > Up to 88 it is < 2ms > Up to 276 --- < 10ms > Up to 535 --- < 50ms > registered new entry, total 1115 entries [took 333 ms] > registered new entry, total 1116 entries [took 334 ms] > registered new entry, total 1117 entries [took 335 ms] > registered new entry, total 1118 entries [took 336 ms] It would be quite interesting to know what causes this. You should also try a recent snapshot (or cvs head), and 7.2, if you aren't already. -- Pedro Alves