From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fq5dJ-0004eO-UF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:55:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fq5dF-0004OB-T2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:55:21 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:50181) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fq5dF-0004MZ-MP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:55:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:55:14 -0400 From: "Emilio G. Cota" Message-ID: <20180815235514.GA23767@flamenco> References: <20180813171132.21939-1-cota@braap.org> <20180813171132.21939-2-cota@braap.org> <20180815030942.GA14092@lemon.usersys.redhat.com> <20180815045323.GA7585@flamenco> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180815045323.GA7585@flamenco> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] qsp: QEMU's Synchronization Profiler List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Crosthwaite , Stefan Weil , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Peter Xu , Markus Armbruster , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 00:53:23 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:09:42 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > On Mon, 08/13 13:11, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > > > + --enable-sync-profiler) sync_profiler="yes" > > > + ;; > > > > Curious, not asking for a change: can this be made a runtime option instead of > > compile time, since there's no library dependencies? That should make this > > somewhat easier to use. > > Good point. I'll do some profiling tomorrow to see how the latency > of the locking primitives could be minimized (ideally, not using > the profiler should just add a well-predicted branch). I reduced it to just a branch, but still, I measured a few percentage points (1-2%, depending on the machine) slowdown when this is a run-time option. (This is for a bootup+shutdown test of a guest.) So I'll keep it as a build-time option, then. Thanks, Emilio