[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <863e9df20709260937v79d555ffn49f3b8ff7aba42cb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:07:50 +0530
From: "Abhishek Sagar" <sagar.abhishek@...il.com>
To: "Avishay Traeger" <atraeger@...sunysb.edu>
Cc: prasanna@...ibm.com, ananth@...ibm.com,
anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KPROBES: Instrumenting a function's call site
On 9/26/07, Avishay Traeger <atraeger@...sunysb.edu> wrote:
> So to measure the latency of foo(), I basically want kprobes to do this:
> pre_handler();
> foo();
> post_handler();
>
> The problem is that the latencies that I am getting are consistently low
> (~10,000 cycles). When I manually instrument the functions, the latency
> is about 20,000,000 cycles. Clearly something is not right here.
Single-stepping is done with preemption (and on some archs like ARM,
interrupts) disabled. May be that is contributing to such a skew.
> Is this a known issue? Instead of using the post-handler, I can try to
> add a kprobe to the following instruction with a pre-handler. I was
> just curious if there was something fundamentally wrong with the
> approach I took, or maybe a bug that you should be made aware of.
>
> Please CC me on any replies (not subscribed to LKML).
>
> Thanks,
> Avishay
>
--
Regards
Abhishek Sagar
-
> 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/
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists