[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL26m8+zbbqngfK0fYb+A2UBQ1fZ9Uxrf4VLWqU1VuMzkcF4xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:02:54 -0700
From: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: 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 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.
But if it doesn't seem to help, then I will not push this patch.
Vaibhav Nagarnaik
--
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