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 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).