From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52081 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2016 20:51:52 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 52069 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2016 20:51:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=UD:jpg X-HELO: mail-qk0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f170.google.com) (209.85.220.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:51:41 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id o6so12098226qkc.2 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FIJf2dH9PaNrYqrEa3pKL2xuRYEoeGChjMCJkF5iF44=; b=bR/NPNVsVR9foKvlrz7GWF6Cf2TtzvY2qpJMTB7Qp57BlQ3yTJF4VDqqzLcaxISMMT BoZcwtcGMlnN79uFJmRUFn2LQ3+5C6r5KNEzmLc5dC/MaanFKJHyuhgzLTAo2fCVWQRS KAYkDsGOagDNcRllVd/L+ilpJi5hgGzOw5wiJl0w18GLdh/cC8eF+AilGDhjiFcpP5St 1WU4tZ1n7UB0yl7z9CVGqtzh6wMI29Gdlq5NZXKxvqmZdk0qpVi3rM9W+bKA2sOkp9qy VaPbq+kk3r/1x2Gh7pHSBAOQLpzwiLpaqCKV+ypX9/RbBO8cufQM3BKsF/TWH1wbb1+h bn+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIyMohR1mhkuVNJEIIUwlOBRTIIj62PLshKa4rXk1NSVSQlEJH/0j8pqaAM4Qf6jCwKl1npbeNv475ZCg== X-Received: by 10.55.72.67 with SMTP id v64mr6226576qka.101.1458766299497; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.189.130 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:51:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56F2F31F.4000104@redhat.com> References: <56F168D7.9050405@redhat.com> <56F16F8F.9050404@redhat.com> <56F1759F.3070100@redhat.com> <56F17A23.90909@redhat.com> <56F2DF69.9030908@redhat.com> <56F2F31F.4000104@redhat.com> From: Yichao Yu Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: JIT debugging (Attach and speed) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Paul Pluzhnikov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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...) The new profile after disabling that line[1]. Am I reading it correctly that it skips the one I disabled and fails to the next option which is basically as expensive? Also, it looks like gdb is trying to get info about the current frame? Can this be disabled for this breakpoint since it's not a "real" one? [1] http://i.imgur.com/NHdoka8.jpg > >> 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 >