From: jan.kiszka@web.de (Jan Kiszka)
Subject: [ltt-dev] LTTng specialized probes
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:56:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48ECD814.4030705@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081008000727.GA22427@Krystal>
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> * Michael Davidson (md at google.com) wrote:
>> Hi, Mathieu!
>>
>> Jiaying forwarded this to me and I wanted to try to understand a
>> little better exactly what direction you are headed in.
>>
>> Like Martin, I am (at least) a little confused and since I wasn't
>> involved in the discussions in Portland please forgive me if I am
>> going over old ground here.
>>
>
> No problem, I'll try to answer the best I can. Don't hesitate to ask for
> clarifications if I am not clear enough.
>
>> It seems to me that one of the key issues in getting good performance
>> out of any kernel tracing system is that you have to record the data
>> that you are trying to capture as quickly as possible. To me that
>> means that during the initial recording of the data, to the maximum
>> extent possible, you don't even look at it - you just slam it straight
>> into your recording buffer and you are done (this should work well for
>> the majority of cases where the data being captured are just scalar
>> values - the more exotic the data the more processing it will need).
>>
>
> Yes, I agree that the best performance is achieved by having a probe
> which already "knows" how much data to save and just "does it", and this
> is what we want for high-throughput events.
I only loosely followed the thread and the latest format-string marker
serialization code. So sorry in advance in case I contribute "cold
coffee" now:
Has anyone thought of / tried out some caching mechanism for this task?
I mean, scan the format string once (I don't think it will change during
runtime... :->), save somewhere that it expects n bytes of
to-be-serialized data on the caller's stack and then get away with only
copying those over into the trace buffer on succeeding marker hits?
Just a thought...
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/ltt-dev/attachments/20081008/c2cf412d/attachment.pgp>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: jan.kiszka@web.de (Jan Kiszka)
Subject: [ltt-dev] LTTng specialized probes
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:56:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48ECD814.4030705@web.de> (raw)
Message-ID: <20081008155604.72AzlqMPBOT4utjCGz8e0ct1ufpuayXJqW0YbTN2ERs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081008000727.GA22427@Krystal>
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> * Michael Davidson (md at google.com) wrote:
>> Hi, Mathieu!
>>
>> Jiaying forwarded this to me and I wanted to try to understand a
>> little better exactly what direction you are headed in.
>>
>> Like Martin, I am (at least) a little confused and since I wasn't
>> involved in the discussions in Portland please forgive me if I am
>> going over old ground here.
>>
>
> No problem, I'll try to answer the best I can. Don't hesitate to ask for
> clarifications if I am not clear enough.
>
>> It seems to me that one of the key issues in getting good performance
>> out of any kernel tracing system is that you have to record the data
>> that you are trying to capture as quickly as possible. To me that
>> means that during the initial recording of the data, to the maximum
>> extent possible, you don't even look at it - you just slam it straight
>> into your recording buffer and you are done (this should work well for
>> the majority of cases where the data being captured are just scalar
>> values - the more exotic the data the more processing it will need).
>>
>
> Yes, I agree that the best performance is achieved by having a probe
> which already "knows" how much data to save and just "does it", and this
> is what we want for high-throughput events.
I only loosely followed the thread and the latest format-string marker
serialization code. So sorry in advance in case I contribute "cold
coffee" now:
Has anyone thought of / tried out some caching mechanism for this task?
I mean, scan the format string once (I don't think it will change during
runtime... :->), save somewhere that it expects n bytes of
to-be-serialized data on the caller's stack and then get away with only
copying those over into the trace buffer on succeeding marker hits?
Just a thought...
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20081008/c2cf412d/attachment-0002.pgp>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: jan.kiszka@web.de (Jan Kiszka)
Subject: [ltt-dev] LTTng specialized probes
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:56:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48ECD814.4030705@web.de> (raw)
Message-ID: <20081008155604.E7FRdecn6m8asgUiDhSDSBU44VsrzPbJu0hsS7fYUFs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081008000727.GA22427@Krystal>
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> * Michael Davidson (md at google.com) wrote:
>> Hi, Mathieu!
>>
>> Jiaying forwarded this to me and I wanted to try to understand a
>> little better exactly what direction you are headed in.
>>
>> Like Martin, I am (at least) a little confused and since I wasn't
>> involved in the discussions in Portland please forgive me if I am
>> going over old ground here.
>>
>
> No problem, I'll try to answer the best I can. Don't hesitate to ask for
> clarifications if I am not clear enough.
>
>> It seems to me that one of the key issues in getting good performance
>> out of any kernel tracing system is that you have to record the data
>> that you are trying to capture as quickly as possible. To me that
>> means that during the initial recording of the data, to the maximum
>> extent possible, you don't even look at it - you just slam it straight
>> into your recording buffer and you are done (this should work well for
>> the majority of cases where the data being captured are just scalar
>> values - the more exotic the data the more processing it will need).
>>
>
> Yes, I agree that the best performance is achieved by having a probe
> which already "knows" how much data to save and just "does it", and this
> is what we want for high-throughput events.
I only loosely followed the thread and the latest format-string marker
serialization code. So sorry in advance in case I contribute "cold
coffee" now:
Has anyone thought of / tried out some caching mechanism for this task?
I mean, scan the format string once (I don't think it will change during
runtime... :->), save somewhere that it expects n bytes of
to-be-serialized data on the caller's stack and then get away with only
copying those over into the trace buffer on succeeding marker hits?
Just a thought...
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20081008/c2cf412d/attachment-0003.pgp>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-08 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <5df78e1d0809231814i4b9b98eeyfb9746e5dbb9eb72@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20080924072503.GA15570@bolzano.suse.de>
[not found] ` <532480950809240032t644448f7lc4fdc0dffca69b9@mail.gmail.com>
2008-10-06 14:11 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-06 15:14 ` Martin Bligh
2008-10-06 15:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-06 15:37 ` Martin Bligh
2008-10-06 15:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-06 17:55 ` Jiaying Zhang
2008-10-06 17:55 ` Jiaying Zhang
2008-10-06 17:55 ` Jiaying Zhang
[not found] ` <5df78e1d0810071116i2e9790cdx8d5854dbfa50cfaf@mail.gmail.com>
2008-10-07 21:28 ` Michael Davidson
2008-10-07 21:28 ` Michael Davidson
2008-10-07 21:28 ` Michael Davidson
2008-10-08 0:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-08 15:56 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2008-10-08 15:56 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-10-08 15:56 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-10-08 16:06 ` Martin Bligh
2008-10-09 2:43 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-09 2:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-09 2:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-09 2:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-09 3:04 ` Michael Davidson
2008-10-09 3:04 ` Michael Davidson
2008-10-09 3:04 ` Michael Davidson
2008-10-09 15:28 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-09 15:39 ` Martin Bligh
2008-10-09 16:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-09 16:28 ` Martin Bligh
2008-10-09 16:55 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-08 0:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=48ECD814.4030705@web.de \
--to=jan.kiszka@web.de \
/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