[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMEtUuzQXo2kwoBUxq0PKOWA=T4WXtg3Bj8vzYvQquzW+isMSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:43:13 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH tip 0/5] tracing filters with BPF
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> ast wrote:
>
>>>[...]
>> Did simple ktap test with 1M alloc_skb/kfree_skb toy test from earlier email:
>> trace skb:kfree_skb {
>> if (arg2 == 0x100) {
>> printf("%x %x\n", arg1, arg2)
>> }
>> }
>> [...]
>
> For reference, you might try putting systemtap into the performance
> comparison matrix too:
>
> # stap -e 'probe kernel.trace("kfree_skb") {
> if ($location == 0x100 /* || $location == 0x200 etc. */ ) {
> printf("%x %x\n", $skb, $location)
> }
> }'
stap with one 'if': 1M skb alloc/free 200696 (usecs)
stap with 10 'if': 1M skb alloc/free 202135 (usecs)
so systemtap entry overhead is a bit higher than bpf and extra if-s
show the same progression as expected.
--
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