From: roland@redhat.com (Roland McGrath)
Subject: [ltt-dev] LTTng-UST vs SystemTap userspace tracing benchmarks
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:19:43 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110216181943.E1E131806E0@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Tom Tromey's message of Wednesday, 16 February 2011 08:30:32 -0700 <m37hd06lpj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
> The sdt.h stuff has been rewritten at least once since then. I'd
> suggest trying the latest. I think it probably won't matter for the
> flight recorder mode, but it may matter for measuring overhead.
The v3 and v2 versions have the same runtime/code overhead. The
difference is in the data overhead, which includes some startup-time
dynamic linking overhead for PIC code. In v3, there is no data
overhead except possibly the one semaphore word, and none of that
startup-time overhead at all.
> I'd be interested to also see the numbers when the probes are in place
> in the source, but not enabled. That is, what is the overhead of a
> disabled probe?
>
> When doing this with SystemTap it would be interesting to try twice:
> once with a semaphore for each probe, and once without.
In v2 and v3, the only runtime overhead of a disabled probe is the
presence of a single 'nop' instruction in the code path. AIUI, on
modern processors that costs less than one cycle. The overhead of
a probe firing is unchanged, being a full breakpoint trap and the
kernel side of handling that and running the probe machinery.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-16 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-15 15:53 Julien Desfossez
2011-02-15 16:25 ` William Cohen
2011-02-17 16:20 ` Julien Desfossez
2011-02-15 16:26 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2011-02-15 16:54 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-15 17:39 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2011-02-15 22:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-15 17:00 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2011-02-15 17:04 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-16 10:56 ` Mark Wielaard
2011-02-16 18:50 ` Roland McGrath
2011-02-16 20:00 ` [ltt-dev] Porting "jump labels" to userspace (was: Re: LTTng-UST vs SystemTap userspace tracing benchmarks) Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-16 20:04 ` Roland McGrath
2011-02-16 20:17 ` [ltt-dev] Porting "jump labels" to userspace David Daney
2011-02-16 20:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-16 20:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-02-16 21:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-17 13:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-16 20:14 ` David Daney
2011-02-16 20:36 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-16 20:55 ` [ltt-dev] LTTng-UST vs SystemTap userspace tracing benchmarks Stefan Hajnoczi
2011-02-16 21:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-02-16 21:16 ` Mark Wielaard
2011-02-15 17:03 ` Mark Wielaard
2011-02-16 15:30 ` Tom Tromey
2011-02-16 18:19 ` Roland McGrath [this message]
2011-02-17 17:33 ` Julien Desfossez
2011-02-17 19:11 ` Josh Stone
2011-02-17 19:33 ` Julien Desfossez
2011-02-17 19:47 ` Josh Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110216181943.E1E131806E0@magilla.sf.frob.com \
--to=roland@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox