[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252942130.2964.148.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:28:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
To: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Trace event testing time - 3s to 41s
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 11:15 -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> Somewhere between -rc9 and yesterday's git, my desktop went from using
> 3s worth of trace event testing time to 41s !
>
> It looks like we not only added a whole bunch of tracing points but
> also are doing the tests twice post -rc9 - the addition being testing
> with function tracer.
>
> grep "Testing event" dmesg.31rc9 |wc -l
> 100
>
> grep "Testing event" dmesg.31git |wc -l
> 1172
This was due to the fact that we test every syscall now.
>
> While one could get away with "don't enable that config option then"
> response, for testing kernels daily this sounds like it is going to be
> very annoying as it adds a considerable boot lag.
>
> So I was thinking could we move this testing to a kthread with idle
> priority or something - may be disabling tracing until those tests are
> finished, if that sort of thing is necessary?
> Or does it need to happen synchronous to booting?
I don't have time at the moment, but I would not mind moving the syscall
testing to a thread. Heck, that way we can actually test syscalls
too ;-)
-- Steve
--
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