[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1CBEEB.3090800@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:38:03 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing
lock statistics
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Also, i agree that the performance aspect is probably the most pressing
> issue. Note that 'perf bench sched messaging' is very locking intense so
> a 10x slowdown is not entirely unexpected - we still ought to optimize
> it all some more. 'perf lock' is an excellent testcase for this in any
> case.
>
Here are some test results to show the overhead of lockdep trace events:
select pagefault mmap Memory par Cont_SW
latency latency latency R/W BD latency
disable ftrace 0 0 0 0 0
enable all ftrace -16.65% -109.80% -93.62% 0.14% -6.94%
enable all ftrace -2.67% 1.08% -3.65% -0.52% -0.68%
except lockdep
We also found big overhead when using kernbench and fio, but we haven't
verified whether it's caused by lockdep events.
Thanks,
Xiao
--
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