From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MF8sr-0001yt-Cs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:41:37 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MF8sm-0001yF-Nt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:41:36 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50400 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MF8sm-0001yC-ID
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:41:32 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:35009)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MF8sl-00082A-Bi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:41:32 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:41:25 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Instruction counting instrumentation for ARM,
	2nd version
Message-ID: <20090612154125.GD18247@shareable.org>
References: <1244804168.7242.186.camel@dis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1244804168.7242.186.camel@dis>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Sami Kiminki <sami.kiminki@tkk.fi>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Sami Kiminki wrote:
> What we would really like to see is a more general instrumentation
> framework, not just instruction counting and not just for ARM targets.
> The reason for this is that many measurements are so much easier to do
> in emulated/simulated environment than in real HW (e.g. instruction
> counting) and doing them in QEMU is way faster than using an ISA
> interpreter such as Valgrind. Some other instrumentation examples that
> come to my mind are cache usage efficiency analysis, branch profiling,
> and naturally instruction and memory access tracing.

Valgrind isn't an interpreter.  It's a JIT compiler like QEMU's TCG,
so are you sure these things are way faster in QEMU?

What might work better would be to share some code from Valgrind/Cachegrind.

-- Jamie