Re: LTT user input

From: Todd Poynor (tpoynor_at_mvista.com)
Date: 07/28/04

  • Next message: Ian Kent: "Re: Future devfs plans (sorry for previous incomplete message)"
    Date:	Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:48:31 -0700
    To: zanussi@us.ibm.com
    
    

    zanussi@us.ibm.com wrote:

    > As with most other tools, we don't tend to hear from users unless they
    > have problems with the tool. :-( LTT has also been picked up by
    > Debian, SuSE, and MontaVista - maybe they have user input that we
    > don't get to see as well...

    I used LTT once to help investigate system startup performance issues on
    a Linux-based cell phone prototype. One thing that might be different
    from most LTT user's experiences is that it was somebody else's
    software, for which I did not have the source. This might help
    illustrate ways in which system administrators can analyze systems for
    improvements, rather than describing a more typical development
    scenario, although this does describe the development phase of a system.

    LTT helped quantify the performance impacts of various system activities
    that might be best minimized (including unneeded system startup scripts
    and the importance of using shell builtins, as well as suggesting
    improvements that might be obtained through use of prelinking shared
    libraries), point out various repeated operations that could probably be
    consolidated (such as file access, process scheduling, and X
    client/server communication), and rule out low memory or the need for
    swapping as a cause of performance problems at that phase of system
    operation.

    A great tool, highly recommended.

    -- 
    Todd Poynor
    MontaVista Software
    -
    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/
    

  • Next message: Ian Kent: "Re: Future devfs plans (sorry for previous incomplete message)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [PATCH/RFC] Significantly reworked LTT core
      ... Exporting a pointer to the root dentry seems like a very wrong API ... Besides that I'd sugest scrapping the ltt name and ltt_ prefix - we know ... we're on linux, adn we don't care whether it's a toolkit, but spelling trace_ ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • kernel 2.4.16
      ... m/c with the new kernel. ... I have a redhat 9.0 version and when I use the ... I need linux2.4.16 because i want to use LTT and the documentation of LTT ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1
      ... On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: ... > haven't yet taken as close a look at LTT as I should have. ... - num_cpus isn't hotplug cpu safe, and you should be using the ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1
      ... The only thing LTT doesn't use is the dynamic resizing, ... You could move all this into the relay layer by making a relay channel ... an event channel. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: kernel 2.4.16
      ... Quoting Karim Yaghmour: ... > LTT ... > You may want to try fixing this patch for the latest kernel (and I could ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)