[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060925153949.GA10285@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:39:49 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
Chuck,
i cannot email you because the mail always bounces ...
the kprobes benchmark is a simple "NOP" function:
static int counter = 0;
static int probe_pre_handler (struct kprobe * kp,
struct pt_regs * regs)
{
counter++;
return 0;
}
i've attached it.
Ingo
* Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com> wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <20060918151713.GA11495@...e.hu>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:17:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > yeah - and i dont think the kprobes overhead is a fundamental thing - i
> > posted a few kprobes-speedup patches as a reply to your measurements.
>
> Where is the source code for the kprobes benchmarks you used?
>
> --
> Chuck
View attachment "noop_kprobe.c" of type "text/plain" (1015 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists