linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	systemtap <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>,
	DLE <dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 4/5] kprobes/x86: Use text_poke_smp_batch
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:27:47 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100512152747.GA12326@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BE9F952.3060505@redhat.com>

* Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> Use text_poke_smp_batch() in optimization path for reducing
> >> the number of stop_machine() issues.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >> Cc: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>
> >> Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |   37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >>  include/linux/kprobes.h   |    2 +-
> >>  kernel/kprobes.c          |   13 +------------
> >>  3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> >> index 345a4b1..63a5c24 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> >> @@ -1385,10 +1385,14 @@ int __kprobes arch_prepare_optimized_kprobe(struct optimized_kprobe *op)
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -/* Replace a breakpoint (int3) with a relative jump.  */
> >> -int __kprobes arch_optimize_kprobe(struct optimized_kprobe *op)
> >> +#define MAX_OPTIMIZE_PROBES 256
> > 
> > So what kind of interrupt latency does a 256-probes batch generate on the
> > system ?  Are we talking about a few milliseconds, a few seconds ?
> 
> From my experiment on kvm/4cpu, it took about 3 seconds in average.

That's 3 seconds for multiple calls to stop_machine(). So we can expect
latencies in the area of few microseconds for each call, right ?

> With this patch, it went down to 30ms. (x100 faster :))

This is beefing up the latency from few microseconds to 30ms. It sounds like a
regression rather than a gain to me.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thank you,
> -- 
> Masami Hiramatsu
> e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-12 15:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-10 17:53 [PATCH -tip 0/5] kprobes: batch (un)optimization support Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-10 17:53 ` [PATCH -tip 1/5] [CLEANUP] kprobes: Remove redundant text_mutex lock in optimize Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-11 12:35   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-05-11 20:06     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-10 17:53 ` [PATCH -tip 2/5] kprobes: Limit maximum number of optimization at once Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-10 17:53 ` [PATCH -tip 3/5] x86: Introduce text_poke_smp_batch() for batch-code modifying Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-10 17:53 ` [PATCH -tip 4/5] kprobes/x86: Use text_poke_smp_batch Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-11 14:40   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-05-12  0:41     ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-12 15:27       ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2010-05-12 17:43         ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-12 17:48           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-05-12 19:11             ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-13 19:07         ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-05-13 21:20           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-05-10 17:53 ` [PATCH -tip 5/5] kprobes: Support delayed unoptimization Masami Hiramatsu

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=20100512152747.GA12326@Krystal \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
    --cc=jkenisto@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhiramat@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=systemtap@sources.redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).