lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: tracepoint maintainance models
    From
    Date
    Ar Llu, 2006-09-18 am 17:22 +0200, ysgrifennodd Ingo Molnar:
    > yeah - but i think to make it easier for SystemTap to insert a
    > low-overhead probe there needs to be a 5-byte NOP inserted. There wont
    > be any function call or condition at that place. At most there will be
    > some minimal impact on the way gcc compiles the code in that function,

    And more L1 misses. It seems that this problem should be solved by
    jprobes and your int3 optimisation work.

    > SystemTap. For example at the point of the probe gcc might already have
    > destroyed a register-passed function parameter.

    So its L1 misses more register reloads and the like. Sounds more and
    more like wasted clock cycles for debug. Most of these watchpoints will
    run billions of times a day on millions of machines none of whom are
    using any debugging. You are optimising the corner case (in the extreme
    in fact). Its one thing to dump trace helper data into the kernel, its
    another when we all get to pay for it all the time when we don't need to
    (or we compile it out at which point it offers nothing anyway).

    Alan

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-18 17:59    [W:2.480 / U:0.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site