Re: Benchmarks of kernel tracing options 2 (ftrace, lttng and perf)

[Douglas Santos]

Quoting Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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?

The previous bench was doing tracing "on" minus "off"
average results. They also used autotest scripts, not sure if
it does exactly the same thing.

I'll check if we missed something.


--
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/