[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F74B42F.3050100@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:12:47 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
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
On 03/29/2012 12:02 PM, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I had missed this added latency due to this
> patch when tracing is disabled.
>
> To fix that, instead of a TIF flag, I am using a flag in the
> current->trace bitmap. I check that flag before jumping to the tracing
> function. That reduces the latency from 83 ns/call to 74 ns/call.
>
ANY increase to the fastpath is unacceptable, period.
Furthermore, as I have discussed with some people over the last few
days, I think we should consider the whole syscall tracing interface set
to be a mistake and deprecate it. There are much better ways to
accomplish something that will work more reliable without all these thunks.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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