lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Benchmarks of kernel tracing options 2 (ftrace, lttng and perf)
From
Date
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:22 -0800, David Sharp wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Douglas Santos
> <douglas.santos@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> > Quoting Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>:
> >> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:31 -0500, Douglas Santos wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > This is a response to a benchmark, submitted a few weeks ago, comparing
> >> kernel
> >> > tracing options.
> >> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/28/422
> >> >
> >> > We followed the methodology described in the link bellow,
> >> > but using the shellscripts posted there to reproduce autotest scripts.
> >> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/28/261
> >> >
> >> > We disabled the extra syscall tracing on lttng, for a fair comparison.
> >> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/28/290
> >> >
> >> > Average results with tracing "on":
> >> >
> >> > lttng: 220 ns
> >> > ftrace: 260 ns
> >>
> >> Heh, so ftrace got worse with the new kernel?
>
> Steve, can you explain how you're drawing that conclusion? Did Douglas
> run this benchmark before on a previous kernel (I didn't see it if
> so)?

Oops, no, I was thinking that this was from your tests. I remember
asking you to try the new kernel. I think I got you and Douglas
confused :-)

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-18 00:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans