Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:36:57 +0900 | From | Yoshihiro YUNOMAE <> | Subject | Re: ivring driver |
| |
(2012/06/06 0:29), Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hi Yoshihiro, > > I stumbled on your post on ivring (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/5/143) > for buffering trace data from guest to host. I notice that it would be > very interesting to see a comparison of its performance against: > > - ftrace ring buffer > - perf ring buffer > - lttng 2.0 ring buffer > - lttng-ust 2.0 (user-space tracing) ring buffer
Hi Mathieu. Thank you for commenting on how to compare among ring-buffer's performances. And sorry, I'm late for replying to you.
> Comparing only with network-related mechanisms does not seem to provide > a complete picture of where it stands wrt other ring buffers out there. > > One of the metric we have used in the past is the number of nanoseconds > it takes to write a single event, based on a test that writes lots of > events into various buffer sizes, into flight recorder mode buffers > (which overwrites oldest information on buffer full condition, with data > collection to disk disabled, to remove I/O from the picture -- I/O can > then be performed in "snapshot" mode, after some error condition is > detected).
OK, I see. When the overhead of ring-buffers will be evaluated in the next, I may use the metric as a reference.
Thank you,
-- Yoshihiro YUNOMAE Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: yoshihiro.yunomae.ez@hitachi.com
| |