All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org>
To: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
	prasanna@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@us.ibm.com>,
	Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com>,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@polymtl.ca>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@redhat.com>,
	ltt-dev@shafik.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Subject: Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:38:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061002153849.GA19568@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45212F1E.3080409@us.ibm.com>

Hi Jose,

* Jose R. Santos (jrs@us.ibm.com) wrote:
> 
> The problem now is how do we define "high event rate".  This is 
> something that is highly dependent on the workload being run as well as 
> the system configuration for such workload.  There are a lot of places 
> in the kernel that can be turned into high event rates with with the 
> right workload even though the may not represent 99% of most user cases. 
> 
> I would guess that anything above 500 event/s per-CPU on several 
> realistic workloads is a good place to start.
> 
Yes, it seems like a good starting point. But besides the event rate, just
having the most widely used events marked in the code should also be the
target. The markup mechanism serves two purposes :
1 - identify important events in a way that follows code change.
2 - speed up instrumentation.

> 
> >On the macro-benchmark side, no significant difference in performance has 
> >been
> >found between the vanilla kernel and a kernel "marked" with the standard 
> >LTTng
> >instrumentation.
> >  
> 
> Out of curiosity,  how many cycles does it take to process a complete 
> LTTng event up until the point were it has been completely stored into 
> the trace buffer.  Since this should take a lot more than 55.74 cycles, 
> it would be interesting to know at what event rate would a static marker 
> stop showing as big of a performance advantage compared to dynamic probing.
> 

In my OLS paper, I pointed out that, in its current state, LTTng took about 278
cycles on the same Pentium 4. I think I could lower that by implementing per-cpu
atomic operations (removing the LOCK prefix, as the data is not shared between
the CPUs; the atomic operations are only useful to protect from higher priority
execution contexts on the same CPU).

Regards,

Mathieu

OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 

  reply	other threads:[~2006-10-02 15:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-30 18:01 Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17 Mathieu Desnoyers
2006-09-30 19:02 ` Nicholas Miell
2006-10-01  3:42   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2006-10-01  4:19     ` Nicholas Miell
2006-10-01 15:33       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2006-10-01 23:57         ` Nicholas Miell
2006-10-02  0:07           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2006-10-02  0:53             ` Nicholas Miell
2006-10-02 14:31 ` [UPDATE] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2006-10-02 15:24 ` Jose R. Santos
2006-10-02 15:38   ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2006-10-08 19:31 ` dean gaudet
2006-10-08 19:40   ` dean gaudet
2006-10-10 13:17   ` 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=20061002153849.GA19568@Krystal \
    --to=compudj@krystal.dyndns.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=fche@redhat.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=jes@sgi.com \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=jrs@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=karim@opersys.com \
    --cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ltt-dev@shafik.org \
    --cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
    --cc=mbligh@google.com \
    --cc=michel.dagenais@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=pavel@suse.cz \
    --cc=prasanna@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
    --cc=richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com \
    --cc=systemtap@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wcohen@redhat.com \
    --cc=zanussi@us.ibm.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.