Re: performance counter ~0.4% error finding retired instructioncount

[Ingo Molnar]

* Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I can think of three ways to eliminate the PLT resolver overhead on
> execvp:
> 
> (1) Do execvp on a non-executable file first to get execvp resolved:
> 
> 	char tmpnam[16];
> 	int fd;
> 	char *args[1];
> 
> 	strcpy(tmpname, "/tmp/perfXXXXXX");
> 	fd = mkstemp(tmpname);
> 	if (fd >= 0) {
> 		args[1] = NULL;
> 		execvp(tmpname, args);
> 		close(fd);
> 		unlink(tmpname);
> 	}
> 	enable_counters();
> 	execvp(prog, argv);
> 
> (2) Look up execvp in glibc and call it directly:
> 
> 	int (*execptr)(const char *, char *const []);
> 
> 	execptr = dlsym(RTLD_NEXT, "execvp");
> 	enable_counters();
> 	(*execptr)(prog, argv);
> 
> (3) Resolve the executable path ourselves and then invoke the execve
> system call directly:
> 
> 	char *execpath;
> 
> 	execpath = search_path(getenv("PATH"), prog);
> 	enable_counters();
> 	syscall(NR_execve, execpath, argv, envp);
> 
> (4) Same as (1), but rely on "" being an invalid program name for
> execvp:
> 
> 	execvp("", argv);
> 	enable_counters();
> 	execvp(prog, argv);
> 
> What do you guys think?  Does any of these appeal more than the
> others?  I'm leaning towards (4) myself.

(4) looks convincingly elegant.

We could also do (5): a one-shot counters-disabled ptrace run of the 
target, then enable-counters-in-target + ptrace-detach after the 
first stop.

	Ingo
--
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/