[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060915182428.GI4577@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:24:28 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: karim@...rsys.com, Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
Hi -
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:31:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-09-15 am 13:08 -0400, ysgrifennodd Frank Ch. Eigler:
Yeah, or something. :-)
> > Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> > - where 1000-cycle int3-dispatching overheads too high
>
> Why are your despatching overheads 1000 cycles ? (and if its due to int3
> why are you using int 3 8))
Smart teams from IBM and Hitachi have been hammering away at this code
for a year or two now, and yet (roughly) here we are. There have been
experiments involving plopping branches instead of int3's at probe
locations, but this is self-modifying code involving multiple
instructions, and appears to be tricky on SMP/preempt boxes.
- FChE
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists