Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Jose R. Santos ([email protected]) wrote:
> To some people performance is the #1 priority and to other it is
> flexibility. I would like to come up with a list of those probe point
> that absolutely need to be inserted into the code statically. Those
> that are not absolutely critical to have statically should be
> implemented dynamically.
>
I agree with you that only very specific parts of the kernel have this kind of
high throughput. Using kprobes for lower thoughput tracepoints if perfectly
acceptable from my point of view, as it does not perturb the system too much.
I would suggest (as a beginning) those "standard" hi event rate tracepoints :
(taken from the highest rates in
http://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2005-q4/msg00451.html)
- syscall entry/exit
- irq entry/exit
- softirq entry/exit
- tasklet entry/exit
- trap entry/exit
- scheduler change
- wakeup
- network traffic (packet in/out)
- "select" and "poll" system calls
- page_alloc/page_free
(be warned : this list is probably incomplete, too exhaustive or can cause
dizziness under stress condition) :)
However, a tracing infrastructure should still provide the ability for
developers to instrument their own high traffic interrupt handler with a very
low overhead.
This is base on a single scenario, which is wrong. A criteria needs to
be establish that describes the justification for a static trace hook.
Base on the previous comments on the thread, this list is already seems
to big.
If a user of the trace tool absolutely need to have the best
performance, then the propose tool should be smart enough to use static
hooks if available but revert back to dynamic probes if there is no
available static counter part. This performance static tracepoint patch
can be maintained outside of the kernel tree without bloating the
kernel. This way he can have mostly dynamic trace point but at least
provide some sort of mechanism for those that absolutely must have
static hooks in order to get useful data out of the trace tool.
-JRS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
