From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id bJ5YLP8yEGB3LAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:27 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A86011EF80; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:27 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [167.114.26.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E473F1E945 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DQ9Pp2GJVz11JN; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:26 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1611674366; bh=nwqdWKbm2q4EKyYWxGEp7rx9fv3lmQrTae6s6g2AfwY=; h=Date:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:From; b=tqCuVOi3VF7Gc5Yk0Q593HoIED0iBfgsFGMn49YtOVsNTpHrBWODyV4ISvBOXqYIJ wGo4bKxj0kEnKfpgrQp51KFqV/zIvGl+4cQ/OGlkzl+58VkMRpFU/GhnekPMj7fb4A 3BHdk55ItirrkCLP9UXIOSd/E9DA7ef0pfWzb8Syq/9PS3FV8dQNq0ey5m3cdg4aPP fNa3HmNCWmSxMeu8tXiPMewh9mtpCmtFvmsp/dwu+RLS1N6X4rpUTTM3TNSpcqs0il yYWSR66D85ddCrjfVu0giOcLmbBJhGezo+IGj6Fr7OsWKrWAmMFRS2wMEOQqamIT4z 9/xE6IGHnXaLQ== Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DQ9Pm28Bhz10wJ for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51B82F792A for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id ZkavRGQoex2c for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961D82F7468 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 961D82F7468 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 0JvfbIjxdqGd for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFC72F77A5 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:19:18 -0500 (EST) To: lttng-dev Message-ID: <1389106165.6573.1611674358449.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [167.114.26.124] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3991 (ZimbraWebClient - FF84 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3980) Thread-Index: 5+AEU0e4tawuTd2JT3Ht+0f1na3RkA== Thread-Topic: Community input: Feedback on use of enumeration type within LTTng-UST Subject: [lttng-dev] Community input: Feedback on use of enumeration type within LTTng-UST X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.31 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev Reply-To: Mathieu Desnoyers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" Hi, We are currently working on the CTF2 specification [1] at EfficiOS, and there is a user metric we would need to help us with a design decision with respect to enumerations. This is where we would need community input. The usage metrics in question are with respect to LTTng-UST enumeration types (TRACEPOINT_ENUM) [2] used by tracepoint events within instrumented applications. A tracepoint enumeration can be used by many events. What we are looking for is to get an idea of the common use, and extreme cases as well. Ideally, what we would need is: - For each enumeration within your application instrumentation (TRACEPOINT_ENUM), how many events refer to each enumeration ? (average, mode, and maximum) - For each TRACEPOINT_ENUM, how many labels do they possess ? (sum number of ctf_enum_value/ctf_enum_range/ctf_enum_auto entries) (average, mode, and maximum) - For each TRACEPOINT_ENUM, for each label, what is the string length ? (average, mode, and maximum) Based on this information, we can estimate the data overhead generated by repeating enumeration labels in the LTTng-UST metadata. We need to decide whether we allow references to a single enumeration description when it is used by many events, or if we require repeatedly serializing the entire enumeration description for each event field using the enumeration. Thanks, Mathieu [1] https://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2020-November/029777.html [2] https://lttng.org/man/3/lttng-ust/v2.12/#doc-tracepoint-enum -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev