public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox