[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290030106.30543.74.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:41:46 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Douglas Santos <douglas.santos@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Benchmarks of kernel tracing options 2 (ftrace, lttng and perf)
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:31 -0500, Douglas Santos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a response to a benchmark, submitted a few weeks ago, comparing kernel
> tracing options.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/28/422
>
> We followed the methodology described in the link bellow,
> but using the shellscripts posted there to reproduce autotest scripts.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/28/261
>
> We disabled the extra syscall tracing on lttng, for a fair comparison.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/28/290
>
> Average results with tracing "on":
>
> lttng: 220 ns
> ftrace: 260 ns
Heh, so ftrace got worse with the new kernel?
-- Steve
> perf: 740 ns
>
>
> E5405 system
> kernel 2.6.36
>
> -lttng 0.239 + 0.19.2modules + sys_getuid tracepoint + sys_getuid probe
> + remove syscall_trace
>
> -ftrace and perf + sys_getuid tracepoint
--
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