From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Theurer Subject: Re: [PATCH] Xenoprof patches for xen-unstable Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:41:17 -0500 Message-ID: <429CA1BD.9090107@us.ibm.com> References: <6C21311CEE34E049B74CC0EF339464B924B3B0@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6C21311CEE34E049B74CC0EF339464B924B3B0@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Santos, Jose Renato G" Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Santos, Jose Renato G wrote: > Andrew > > This is weird. Something seems wrong. > I am not familiar with the benchmark you are > running. Is this something easy to try? > If you could send me the code and some instructions on > how to use it, I can try running the same benchmark > in my environment. > I will also spend sometime looking more carefully > at xenoprof and my tests to see if I find anything wrong > > Although I can not redistribute SDET, it probably is available to you since you are at HP: http://www.spec.org/osg/sdm91/ It's actually quite a useful benchmark as it has a lot of fork+exec and you can really stress a system with it. -Andrew > Renato > > > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Andrew Theurer [mailto:habanero@us.ibm.com] >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:08 AM >>>To: Santos, Jose Renato G >>>Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Xenoprof patches for xen-unstable >>> >>> >>>On Wednesday 25 May 2005 14:10, Santos, Jose Renato G wrote: >>> >>> >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> I have attached patches for enabling system wide profiling >>>> using oprofile for xen unstable. >>>> The patches were generated against change-set 1.1507 (May 22). >>>> The 4 attached files are >>>> >>>> 1) xenoprof.txt: >>>> - xenoprof overview and user guide >>>> 2) xenoprof-1.1-xen-3.0-devel.patch: >>>> - patch for xen >>>> 3) xenoprof-1.1-linux-2.6.11: >>>> - patch for linux. Note that this needs to be applied >>>> twice, once to linux-2.6.11-xen0 and once to >>>> linux-2.6.11-xenU. (This is different than the last >>>> patch which was created against the linux sparse tree). >>>> 4) xenoprof-1.1-oprofile-0.8.2: >>>> - patch for oprofile version 0.8.2 >>>> >>>> >>>Thanks very much for these; this is going to be extremly >>>helpful. I am >>>using these on xen-unstable-bk-1.1518 currently. One >>>problem: so far I >>>have not observed any ticks in xen-syms. I have tried SDET >>>benchmark, >>>which on your previous patches (for xen-2.0-testing), I >>>would get about >>>12% of ticks in xen-syms. >>> >>>This is on a single cpu xen0 domain with no other domains >>>running. I >>>verified that the XENIMAGE and XEN_RANGE were getting passed to >>>oprofiled correctly. I do not specify any active or passive domains >>>since this is the only domain running. Any ideas why I >>>would not get >>>any ticks for xen-syms? >>> >>>Has anyone else tried xenoprofile? >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>-Andrew >>> >>> >>> > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > >