From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-45033-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 87768 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2016 19:48:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 87751 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2016 19:48:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:48:51 +0000
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF2463148;	Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1])	by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2NJmmx4026025;	Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:48:48 -0400
Subject: Re: JIT debugging (Attach and speed)
To: Yichao Yu <yyc1992@gmail.com>
References: <CAMvDr+TKDYeECiUK7Kz7TGSRF826Vq24z_=CPQXz1vyxmMUm_w@mail.gmail.com> <56F168D7.9050405@redhat.com> <56F16F8F.9050404@redhat.com> <CAMvDr+TRSF16fKnnb9tWD4Xctek31Sdgx2m1ct=UctXL_b9vuA@mail.gmail.com> <56F1759F.3070100@redhat.com> <CAMvDr+QcMrHk6y7hGr1NaijEXK=dH+J0CGJZs6m_Rk2D2oSm-g@mail.gmail.com> <56F17A23.90909@redhat.com> <CAMvDr+ST=4a11-B=ymUQDRdOCZmVUgdfkhFbUDknvjkaGjtGWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMvDr+Ra3yi465XBcJR=oYtOM8+-=1Hj2xs32n-wYVpiN_exUQ@mail.gmail.com> <56F2DF69.9030908@redhat.com> <CAMvDr+RxhEhRCHDFYhcpo29ma6z0CMYF1ZEryBzq2VPyaj4nmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56F2F31F.4000104@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:48:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMvDr+RxhEhRCHDFYhcpo29ma6z0CMYF1ZEryBzq2VPyaj4nmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2

On 03/23/2016 07:32 PM, Yichao Yu wrote:

>> So, as a quick hack, if you make inline_frame_sniffer bail out early
>> with 0, does it improve things?
> 

> The timing looks the same. =(

Bummer.  :-/

Having now looked at the gdb.base/jit.exp test, I see that
we can easily reproduce this with:

gdb ---args ./testsuite/outputs/gdb.base/jit/jit-main ./testsuite/outputs/gdb.base/jit/jit-solib.so 2000

(It'd be nice to turn this into a check-perf test...)

> What do you mean by "loader"? since you mentioned call JIT_REGISTER I
> assume you mean JIT compiler?

Yes, sorry.  I meant whatever code ends up "sending" a JIT_REGISTER
event to gdb.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves