From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id vk/lDyIprGQ25RwAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:52:02 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lists.lttng.org header.i=@lists.lttng.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Mpa9Vx4f; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2EBA21E0BD; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:52:02 -0400 (EDT) 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 976021E00F for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:51:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1689004319; bh=py7hAEyZACrLTqqVUGPQZgfgawFWd1XQUlWlcCN7ei4=; h=Date:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:From; b=Mpa9Vx4fsVq36UO0TsdXSpzlmApph/bhC9CTvn/Ht3QX575dJ1sLpYKtW/3ZNCZZ6 Ld7ijqxuYUVv7Oqr4t3PbWOrk/R937hWM3KWm+2S0W6KkT1QklrZjRfFJwrWhAQq0j llNqLdIH65xiDmoweoqK+mRb6+7lEXuzP1xEjiB2ibN/UQ3R7Q5T8imLBEEFVoyPvb cTeI9/PQvwzCSUrzTpXMLoTouhIhY2SgkcoEpzEeXxWWKN2CQ8ASagMKYvYM/FklnY MCbyWZe+OWdzJVg1XVXt9f7RsW0Kj/nCo7tYz4VpI4DwBPBFNg6IFT3rRgWSEYGTky Utpb6vJu7kZwg== Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4R07mH0NDkz28PH; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4R07mF2BV3z289N for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-99313a34b2dso542052266b.1 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 08:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689004315; x=1691596315; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=G/60khv6l+TtfsFPONh+hKpx3elmYDDan/TQcClpoWI=; b=VoOtVr7Zfp+qcYqZr5NbUCIcJ4CtM1Gu3F/SP/nVPidXwIypKT0bSMrsyxmhIFqiM3 93mSN1mh0x5qXIOH1zqTi/aZl0syhSD9p5BsL1Rvuuaj2gEjFlHkcfU59nT7sWy7BB59 fOBiW8796dPF1OCOOOOGNje5QUuGOUQDCmRICKNK8lbaV/vdL1UxoRr7YN6Y99yHUNzk E/8e8AUM3dEF18fGwMbjU3XI1IjPC+1kYST4Ba5zVZdnWPrJtANYvtMtgzhi47LfGwxl OVez6QWy1HEYDvfauRpIzrvfnc/zIOKpTSWbx/phVgdZ8SQgzFEU3aAyCVv2ZsdLkE9N np7w== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZg6IsnUzVO8Wxqsn+bv6KOkA4rAO/3QZgF+BxHynH/kTG6Mw/7 LiQeCe0t/OVOJ/oqXurIQDuWq5Z4qQ1m4+d5D32U2NQsXvTdrA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlEms5jAVU0+glgdy0fAfBB+uA9XceVYMMJGwbEaaylRb99YUWUj12MZ9/Q/pWYWT3C8nVZyyGMXPe3rv0ARAQY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9614:b0:989:5d0:3189 with SMTP id s20-20020a170906961400b0098905d03189mr11776161ejx.33.1689004315247; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:49:57 -0400 Message-ID: To: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org Subject: [lttng-dev] delay in Java/python events X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Adel Belkhiri via lttng-dev Reply-To: Adel Belkhiri Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8066301823102000707==" Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" --===============8066301823102000707== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003c0721060023f6d3" --0000000000003c0721060023f6d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello LTTng community, Currently, I'm tracing a java (and Python) application using LTTng. I noticed there is a considerable delay between the time the tracepoint instruction is executed and the time its corresponding event is recorded by LTTng. It seems that the problem comes from the fact that LTTng uses agents to handle java/Python events. Is there any benchmark measuring such delay? Is it possible to minimize this delay (for example by flushing the logger)? Currently, I'm considering putting my tracepoints in a shared library and calling them from within Java code using JNI so that events recording will be "synchronous" with application code execution. Is there any other technique that I can use? Thank you for your help. Adel --0000000000003c0721060023f6d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello LTTng community,

Currently, I'm tracing a= java (and Python) application using LTTng. I noticed there is a considerab= le delay between the time the tracepoint instruction is executed and the ti= me its corresponding event is recorded by LTTng. It seems that the problem = comes from the fact that LTTng uses agents to handle java/Python events. Is= there any benchmark measuring such delay? Is it possible to minimize this = delay (for example by flushing the logger)? Currently, I'm considering = putting my tracepoints in a shared library and calling them from within Jav= a code using JNI so that events recording will be "synchronous" w= ith application code execution. Is there any other technique that I can use= ? Thank you for your help.

Adel
--0000000000003c0721060023f6d3-- --===============8066301823102000707== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev --===============8066301823102000707==--