Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:42:12 -0400
* Nicholas Miell (nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hi,
Following the huge discussion thread about tracing/static vs dynamic
instrumentation/markers, a consensus seems to emerge about the need for a
marker system in the Linux kernel. The main issues this mechanism addresses are:
- Identify code important to runtime data collection/analysis tools in tree so
that it follows the code changes naturally.
- Be visually appealing to kernel developers.
- Have a very low impact on the system performance.
- Integrate in the standard kernel infrastructure : use C and loadable modules.
The time has come for some performance measurements of the Linux Kernel Markers,
which follows. I attach a PDF with tables and charts which condense these
results.
Has anyone done any performance measurements with the "regular function
call replaced by a NOP" type of marker?
Here it is (on the same setup as the other tests : Pentium 4, 3 GHz) :
* Execute an empty loop
- Without marker
NR_LOOPS : 10000000
time delta (cycles): 15026497
cycles per loop : 1.50
- With 5 NOPs
NR_LOOPS : 100000
time delta (cycles): 300157
cycles per loop : 3.00
added cycles per loop for nops : 3.00-1.50 = 1.50
* Execute a loop of memcpy 4096 bytes
- Without marker
NR_LOOPS : 10000
time delta (cycles): 12981555
cycles per loop : 1298.16
- With 5 NOPs
NR_LOOPS : 10000
time delta (cycles): 12983925
cycles per loop : 1298.39
added cycles per loop for nops : 0.23
If we compare this approach to the jump-over-call markers (in cycles per loop) :
NOPs Jump over call generic Jump over call optimized
empty loop 1.50 1.17 2.50
memcpy 0.23 2.12 0.07
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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17
- From: Nicholas Miell
- Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Calgary IOMMU: update to work with PCI domains
- Next by Date: [PATCH] kernel-doc for kernel/dma.c
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Calgary IOMMU: update to work with PCI domains
- Next by thread: Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|