[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120329062031.GB1376@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:20:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
Justin Teravest <teravest@...gle.com>,
Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] trace: trace syscall in its handler not from ptrace
handler
* Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> > But instead you add a penalty for every syscall, even if tracing is
> > disabled. Not cool.
>
> I just ran a small test binary which calls syscall(SYS_getuid) in a
> tight loop and calculates the latency per syscall.
>
> Without my patch: it is 70 ns/call
> With my patch: it is 83 ns/call
>
> So yes, it does add a bit of latency to the syscall even if
> tracing is disabled. I wonder if I can change the redirection
> function so that it doesn't add so much latency.
There's a really simple rule for anything tracing/debugging
related: and syscalls don't add *ANY* kind of latency to the
non-tracing case. That is true of the current syscall tracing
bits, they work via a TIF flag and don't add any latency.
Thanks,
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