linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060916191043.GA22558@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:10:43 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	karim@...rsys.com, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.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


* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:

> See http://ltt.polymtl.ca/svn/tests/kernel/test-kprobes.c to insert 
> the kprobe. Tests done on LTTng 0.5.111, on a x86 3GHz with 
> hyperthreading.

i have done a bit of kprobes and djprobes testing on a 2160 MHz Athlon64 
CPU, UP. I have tested 2 types of almost-NOP tracepoints (on 2.6.17), 
where the probe function only increases a counter:

 static int counter;

 static void probe_func(struct djprobe *djp, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
         counter++;
 }

and have measured the overhead of an unmodified, kprobes-probed and 
djprobes-probed sys_getpid() system-call:

 sys_getpid() unmodified latency:    317 cycles   [ 0.146 usecs ]
 sys_getpid() kprobes latency:       815 cycles   [ 0.377 usecs ]
 sys_getpid() djprobes latency:      380 cycles   [ 0.176 usecs ]

i.e. the kprobes overhead is +498 cycles (+0.231 usecs), the djprobes 
overhead is +63 cycles (+0.029 usecs).

what do these numbers tell us? Firstly, on this CPU the kprobes overhead 
is not 1000-2000 cycles but 500 cycles. Secondly, if that's not fast 
enough, the "next-gen kprobes" code, djprobes have a really small 
overhead of 63 cycles.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/