From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "W. Michael Petullo" Subject: Re: Questions about OProfile Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:45:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20110405214539.GA1970@imp.local> References: <20110405170310.GA2801@imp.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Anil Madhavapeddy Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> First, what is the status of Xenoprof? The latest patch is against 0.9.5, >> but OProfile 0.9.6 is about 16 months old. Is Xenoprof actively >> maintained? > There is a crufty pv_ops patch that I forward ported to 2.6.32 in this tree: > > https://github.com/avsm/linux-2.6.32-xen-oprofile So, is it true that I need to 1) use this patch or 2) use a non-PV Ops Dom0? I thought 2.6.32 was already non-PV Ops. > It's not suitable for upstreaming, but passive profiling of domains > works fine for me using this kernel. Ian Pratt suggested dropping > active profiling in order to simplify the patch: does anyone actually > use active profiling? I am especially interested in passive profiling because I wish to profile experimental kernels. Developing on top of Xen is a big win for this type of work precisely because of tools like gdbsx and passive profiling. With this capability, there is no need to spend time adding debugging or profiling features into a new kernel. > Jeremy also pointed out the new perf framework in Linux to me at the > hackathon, but I haven't had a chance to look at how it works: > > https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page -- Mike :wq