From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5143 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2009 01:09:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 5135 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2009 01:09:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:09:18 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4CA2C028; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AAF8E5AC; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:09:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4AFB5FDD.7010008@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:53:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder CC: Marc Khouzam , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: real world reverse debugging success story References: <4AFB54CA.9090900@vmware.com> <4AFB5F43.3030908@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4AFB5F43.3030908@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder wrote: > Marc Khouzam wrote: >> [...] >>> Stats: used an 8 million instruction cache, running as a >>> ring buffer. Had to record over 80 million instructions >>> before I tripped the bug. Saved core file with record log >>> was 250 megabytes, and reloaded fine. >> Very impressive! >> >> How was the responsiveness? I assume you didn't step >> over all those instuctions ;-) So, you must have run the program >> and have it be recorded for a while. I'm wondering if the execution >> was annoyingly slow, or if it was ok. > > The record phase was kind of slow, but I'm sure that was > impacted by a very large number of notifications to the effect > that process record would not record some memory because it > could not get the segment register. > > Replay was not bad at all, about 15 seconds to get from > "goto-bookmark begin" to "goto-bookmark end". For 80 > million instructions, that's about 5 million insns / sec. > > Much faster than a first gen IBM PC, for instance! ;-) Oh, sorry, it was 8 million insns, so about 0.5M / sec.