Re: [PATCH 4/6] trace: trace syscall in its handler not from ptracehandler
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Mar 29 2012 - 02:20:39 EST
* Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But instead you add a penalty for every syscall, even if tracing is
> > disabled. Not cool.
> I just ran a small test binary which calls syscall(SYS_getuid) in a
> tight loop and calculates the latency per syscall.
> Without my patch: it is 70 ns/call
> With my patch: it is 83 ns/call
> So yes, it does add a bit of latency to the syscall even if
> tracing is disabled. I wonder if I can change the redirection
> function so that it doesn't add so much latency.
There's a really simple rule for anything tracing/debugging
related: and syscalls don't add *ANY* kind of latency to the
non-tracing case. That is true of the current syscall tracing
bits, they work via a TIF flag and don't add any latency.
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/