* Ingo Molnar ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You are late (I don't blame you about it, considering the size of this
> > thread). It has been posted in the following email :
> >
> > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2006-09/msg04492.html
>
> yeah - and i dont think the kprobes overhead is a fundamental thing - i
> posted a few kprobes-speedup patches as a reply to your measurements.
>
Hi Ingo,
Yes, and I replied that I really don't think that a few cycles saved here and
there by a predicted branch will change anything significant compared to the
int3 cost. As my test bench is really not that hard to deploy (I have given the
precise instructions to do so), I assume that the burden of the proof is on your
side there.
Anyhow, I prefer to move to a more constructive matter than testing kprobes
branch optimisations.
Mathieu
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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]
