[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081104164358.GB27339@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:43:58 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ftrace: function tracer with irqs disabled
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > > > tracing type times entries recorded
> > > > ------------ -------- ----------------
> > > > irq disabled 43.393 166433066
> > > > 43.282 166172618
> > > > 43.298 166256704
> > > >
> > > > preempt disabled 38.969 159871710
> > > > 38.943 159972935
> > > > 39.325 161056510
> When we used the preempt disabled version, we lost 5 million traces,
> as suppose to the irq disabled which was only 1,150 traces lost.
>
> Considering that we had 166,256,704 traces total, that 5 million is
> only 4% lost of traces. Still quite a lot. But again, this is an
> extreme, because we are tracing hackbench.
there's about 10% difference between the two hackbench results - so
the lack of 5% of the traces could make up for about half of that
overhead.
anyway, that still leaves the other 5% as the _true_ overhead of IRQ
disable.
is there some other workload that does not lose this many trace
entries, making it easier to compare irqs-off against preempt-off?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists