From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] uprobes/tracing: Don't pass addr=ip to perf_trace_buf_submit()
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:59:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411115921.GA27492@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516692BF.6070904@hitachi.com>
On 04/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/04/10 23:58), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > And... Cough, another question ;) To simplify, lets discuss kprobe_perf_func()
> > only. Suppose that a task hits the kprobe but this task/cpu doesn't have
> > a counter. Can't we avoid perf_trace_buf_prepare/submit in this case?
> > IOW, what do you think about the change below?
>
> Hmm, I'm not so sure how frequently this happens.
Suppose that you do, say, "perf record -e probe:some_func workload". Only
"workload" will have the active counter, any other task which hits the
probed some_func() will do perf_trace_buf_prepare/perf_trace_buf_submit
just to realize that nobody wants perf_swevent_event().
Simple test-case:
#include <unistd.h>
int main(void)
{
int n;
for (n = 0; n < 1000 * 1000; ++n)
getppid();
return 0;
}
Without kprobe:
# time ./ppid
real 0m0.663s
user 0m0.163s
sys 0m0.500s
Activate the probe:
# perf probe sys_getppid
# perf record -e probe:sys_getppid sleep 1000 &
[1] 546
Test it again 3 times:
# time ./ppid
Before the patch:
real 0m9.727s
user 0m0.177s
sys 0m9.547s
real 0m9.752s
user 0m0.180s
sys 0m9.573s
real 0m9.761s
user 0m0.187s
sys 0m9.573s
After the patch:
real 0m9.605s
user 0m0.163s
sys 0m9.437s
real 0m9.592s
user 0m0.167s
sys 0m9.423s
real 0m9.613s
user 0m0.183s
sys 0m9.427s
So the difference looks measurable but small, and I did the testing
under qemu so I do not really know if we can trust the numbers.
> And, is this right way to
> handle that case?
If only I was sure ;) I am asking.
And, to clarify, it is not that I think this change can really
improve the perfomance. Just I am trying to understand what I have
missed.
> If so, we can do same thing also on trace_events.
> (perf_trace_##call in include/trace/ftrace.h)
Yes, yes, this is not kprobe-specific. It seems that more users of
perf_trace_buf_submit() could be changed the same way.
Thanks,
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-11 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-29 18:15 [PATCH 0/4] uprobes/tracing: uretprobes, initial preparations Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-29 18:15 ` [PATCH 1/4] uprobes/tracing: Kill the pointless task_pt_regs() calls Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-02 8:57 ` Anton Arapov
2013-04-04 14:24 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-03-29 18:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] uprobes/tracing: Kill the pointless seq_print_ip_sym() call Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-02 8:57 ` Anton Arapov
2013-04-04 14:24 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-03-29 18:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] uprobes/tracing: Kill the pointless local_save_flags/preempt_count calls Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-02 8:58 ` Anton Arapov
2013-04-04 14:25 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-05 3:47 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-04-05 15:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-08 9:29 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-04-10 14:58 ` [PATCH 0/1] uprobes/tracing: Don't pass addr=ip to perf_trace_buf_submit() Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-10 14:58 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-11 10:19 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-04-13 9:28 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-11 10:38 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Masami Hiramatsu
2013-04-11 11:59 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-04-12 18:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-04-12 21:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-04-13 14:02 ` [PATCH 0/1] uprobes/perf: Avoid perf_trace_buf_prepare/submit if ->perf_events is empty Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-13 14:02 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-13 18:22 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-08 15:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] uprobes/tracing: Kill the pointless local_save_flags/preempt_count calls Steven Rostedt
2013-04-09 14:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-03-29 18:15 ` [PATCH 4/4] uprobes/tracing: generalize struct uprobe_trace_entry_head Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-02 8:59 ` Anton Arapov
2013-04-04 14:25 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-08 15:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-04-09 14:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 15:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] uprobes/tracing: uretprobes Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] uprobes/tracing: Generalize struct uprobe_trace_entry_head Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] uprobes/tracing: Introduce uprobe_{trace,perf}_print() helpers Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] uprobes/tracing: Introduce is_ret_probe() and uretprobe_dispatcher() Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] uprobes/tracing: Make uprobe_{trace,perf}_print() uretprobe-friendly Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-13 9:33 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] uprobes/tracing: Make register_uprobe_event() paths uretprobe-friendly Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] uprobes/tracing: Make seq_printf() code uretprobe-friendly Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-09 19:32 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] uprobes/tracing: Change create_trace_uprobe() to support uretprobes Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-01 16:08 ` [PATCH 0/6] uprobes/tracing: uretprobes Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-01 16:08 ` [PATCH 1/6] uprobes/tracing: Introduce uprobe_{trace,perf}_print() helpers Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-07 13:58 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-01 16:08 ` [PATCH 2/6] uprobes/tracing: Introduce is_ret_probe() and uretprobe_dispatcher() Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-07 14:12 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-01 16:08 ` [PATCH 3/6] uprobes/tracing: Make uprobe_{trace,perf}_print() uretprobe-friendly Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-07 10:31 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-09 13:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-13 9:31 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-08 17:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-04-01 16:08 ` [PATCH 4/6] uprobes/tracing: Make register_uprobe_event() paths uretprobe-friendly Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-07 14:14 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-01 16:08 ` [PATCH 5/6] uprobes/tracing: Make seq_printf() code uretprobe-friendly Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-07 14:15 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-01 16:09 ` [PATCH 6/6] uprobes/tracing: Change create_trace_uprobe() to support uretprobes Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-07 14:17 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-04-02 13:25 ` [PATCH 0/6] uprobes/tracing: uretprobes Anton Arapov
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=20130411115921.GA27492@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.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.