On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:02:23 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anton - who has used oprofile to analyse and tune databases, JVMs,
> > compilers and operating systems. Maybe I've been missing out on
> > the killer app for all this time!!!
>
> it's OK if you use it full time
* Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This surprises me. Can you please elaborate on why oprofile is "much
> less useful" than sysprof?
see the thread you are replying to.
> Anton - who has used oprofile to analyse and tune databases, JVMs,
> compilers and operating systems.
* Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thanks, looks good to me - applied.
>
> Woah slow down guys. Did I miss the review?
note that it was applied to x86.git#testing. It's as if Andrew applied
something to -mm. This is not a guarantee of upstream merging (at all).
Ingo
--
* Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You could try passing the --callgraph option to opcontrol.
> >
> > Hmm, perhaps I am missing something but I don't think that does what
> > sysprof does. At
* Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could try passing the --callgraph option to opcontrol.
Hmm, perhaps I am missing something but I don't think that does what
sysprof does. At least I can't find
* Anton Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks, looks good to me - applied.
Woah slow down guys. Did I miss the review?
note that it was applied to x86.git#testing. It's as if Andrew applied
something to -mm. This is not a guarantee of upstream merging (at all).
Ingo
--
To
* Anton Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This surprises me. Can you please elaborate on why oprofile is much
less useful than sysprof?
see the thread you are replying to.
Anton - who has used oprofile to analyse and tune databases, JVMs,
compilers and operating systems. Maybe I've
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:02:23 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anton - who has used oprofile to analyse and tune databases, JVMs,
compilers and operating systems. Maybe I've been missing out on
the killer app for all this time!!!
it's OK if you use it full time and if
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You could try passing the --callgraph option to opcontrol.
>
> Hmm, perhaps I am missing something but I don't think that does what
> sysprof does. At least I can't find where in the oprofile kernel code
> does
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Nicholas Miell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sysprof tracks the full stack frame so it can provide meaningful call
> > tree (who called what) which is invaluable for spotting hot _paths_. I
> > don't see how oprofile can do that as it tracks instruction pointers
> It was only later I tried oprofile and found it not only much more
> difficult to use, but also much less useful when I did get it to work.
This surprises me. Can you please elaborate on why oprofile is "much
less useful" than sysprof?
Anton - who has used oprofile to analyse and tune
Hi Peter,
> Usable for me is a cli interface. Also, I absolutely love opannotate.
I definitely agree there.
It's interesting to note that sysprof requires you to run the GUI as
root in order to work. Maybe Ingo and Arjan are confident there are no
bugs in all the libraries that sysprof links
> > From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
> >
> > The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
> > userspace is spending CPU time. See
> > http://w
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ for more information
Hi Peter,
Usable for me is a cli interface. Also, I absolutely love opannotate.
I definitely agree there.
It's interesting to note that sysprof requires you to run the GUI as
root in order to work. Maybe Ingo and Arjan are confident there are no
bugs in all the libraries that sysprof links
It was only later I tried oprofile and found it not only much more
difficult to use, but also much less useful when I did get it to work.
This surprises me. Can you please elaborate on why oprofile is much
less useful than sysprof?
Anton - who has used oprofile to analyse and tune databases,
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Nicholas Miell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sysprof tracks the full stack frame so it can provide meaningful call
tree (who called what) which is invaluable for spotting hot _paths_. I
don't see how oprofile can do that as it tracks instruction pointers only.
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could try passing the --callgraph option to opcontrol.
Hmm, perhaps I am missing something but I don't think that does what
sysprof does. At least I can't find where in the oprofile kernel code
does it save
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:32:40PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > There are plenty of things that can be done, including using search
> > paths to try to find vmlinuz; or maybe even proposing a new standard
> > such as say for example /lib/modules/`uname -r`/vmlinux being a
>
> At the time when I
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:02AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Firstly, the distributions should have set this up automatically. That
> > they don't is a distributor bug. The sheer madness of Linux not leaving
> > a vmlinux file in a stable known location is hardly something oprofile
> > can
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm the one to make sure that patches for useful userspace tools that
> get submitted to me eventually go upstream, one way or another.
just to make it clear: that "one way or another" very much includes the
possibility that sysprof is modified to
* Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The abdication of responsibility and the lack of trying to solve the
> usability issues is one of the things that really worries me about
> *all* of Linux's RAS tools. We can and should do better! And it's
> really embarassing that the RAS
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:53:35PM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:37:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > It's 200 lines of pretty well isolated code for something that is
> > already much more usable to me than 10 years of oprofile. Really, i'd
> > much rather take 200
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:53:35PM +, John Levon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:37:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It's 200 lines of pretty well isolated code for something that is
already much more usable to me than 10 years of oprofile. Really, i'd
much rather take 200 lines of
* Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The abdication of responsibility and the lack of trying to solve the
usability issues is one of the things that really worries me about
*all* of Linux's RAS tools. We can and should do better! And it's
really embarassing that the RAS maintainers
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm the one to make sure that patches for useful userspace tools that
get submitted to me eventually go upstream, one way or another.
just to make it clear: that one way or another very much includes the
possibility that sysprof is modified to make
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:02AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Firstly, the distributions should have set this up automatically. That
they don't is a distributor bug. The sheer madness of Linux not leaving
a vmlinux file in a stable known location is hardly something oprofile
can be blamed
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:32:40PM +, John Levon wrote:
There are plenty of things that can be done, including using search
paths to try to find vmlinuz; or maybe even proposing a new standard
such as say for example /lib/modules/`uname -r`/vmlinux being a
At the time when I was
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 04:49 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I didn't need to write a new kernel module to enable that
> > thirteen-character shell script, and I don't believe one needs to write a
> > new kernel module to put a nice easy-to-use GUI around
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
I didn't need to write a new kernel module to enable that
thirteen-character shell script, and I don't believe one needs to write a
new kernel module to put a nice easy-to-use GUI around oprofile either.
This is one of those
On 23 Feb 2008 21:15:52 +0100 Soeren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was only later I tried oprofile and found it not only much more
> difficult to use, but also much less useful when I did get it to work.
Could we please be very careful to not conflate oprofile's kernel support
with
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Soren wrote sysprof when he tried an earlier version of oprofile and
> found it slightly non-obvious. Instead of doing any of these things:
This is not accurate. Sysprof started by me adding a hierarchical call
view to speedprof, a SIGPROF profiler which
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0200 "Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> > your distributor already did it for you.
> >
> > Sidebar:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:51:34 +0200 "Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> > your distributor already did it for you.
>
> Have you
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:37:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Sysprof needs a 200 line kernel module to do it's work, this module
> > > puts some simple profiling data into debugfs.
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > Seems a poor idea to
* John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ The newbie user eventually finds out that opcontrol help text is
> > buggy and that -s does not mean --start, but --setup. ]
>
> It's astonishing that you would know about this, complaining about
> this, but not file a bug report. Same goes
Obviously I hold no sway here, so there's little point in my continuing
to try and fight this madness, but I have to say my piece. Don't worry,
I'll leave it after this - I know Ingo always gets his way.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:37:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> and ask him to try oprofile
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> your distributor already did it for you.
>
> Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which
>
> a) is woefully misnamed
Hi Ingo,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a comparison, here's a session of a newbie developer, meeting
> oprofile for the first time in his life (using a fresh package,
> oprofile-0.9.3-6.fc8):
>
> -->
> [ Newbie: WTF, no GUI
* Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> > your distributor already did it for you.
>
> Have you tried sysprof? It's really nice to
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> your distributor already did it for you.
Have you tried sysprof? It's really nice to setup and use compared to
oprofile when profiling
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sysprof needs a 200 line kernel module to do it's work, this module
> > puts some simple profiling data into debugfs.
> >
> > ...
>
> Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not
> if your distributor already did it for
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:37:56 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
>
> The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
> use
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:37:56 -0800 Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sysprof needs a 200 line kernel module to do it's work, this module
puts some simple profiling data into debugfs.
...
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is hard to set up, but not
if your distributor already did it for you.
two
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is hard to set up, but not if
your distributor already did it for you.
Have you tried sysprof? It's really nice to setup and use compared to
oprofile when profiling user-space.
* Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is hard to set up, but not if
your distributor already did it for you.
Have you tried sysprof? It's really nice to setup and use
Hi Ingo,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a comparison, here's a session of a newbie developer, meeting
oprofile for the first time in his life (using a fresh package,
oprofile-0.9.3-6.fc8):
--
[ Newbie: WTF, no GUI tool? ]
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is hard to set up, but not if
your distributor already did it for you.
Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which
a) is woefully misnamed and
b)
Obviously I hold no sway here, so there's little point in my continuing
to try and fight this madness, but I have to say my piece. Don't worry,
I'll leave it after this - I know Ingo always gets his way.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:37:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
and ask him to try oprofile
* John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ The newbie user eventually finds out that opcontrol help text is
buggy and that -s does not mean --start, but --setup. ]
It's astonishing that you would know about this, complaining about
this, but not file a bug report. Same goes for the
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:37:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sysprof needs a 200 line kernel module to do it's work, this module
puts some simple profiling data into debugfs.
...
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:51:34 +0200 Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is hard to set up, but not if
your distributor already did it for you.
Have you tried sysprof? It's
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0200 Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is hard to set up, but not if
your distributor already did it for you.
Sidebar: the code uses the
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Soren wrote sysprof when he tried an earlier version of oprofile and
found it slightly non-obvious. Instead of doing any of these things:
This is not accurate. Sysprof started by me adding a hierarchical call
view to speedprof, a SIGPROF profiler which was
On 23 Feb 2008 21:15:52 +0100 Soeren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was only later I tried oprofile and found it not only much more
difficult to use, but also much less useful when I did get it to work.
Could we please be very careful to not conflate oprofile's kernel support
with
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
I didn't need to write a new kernel module to enable that
thirteen-character shell script, and I don't believe one needs to write a
new kernel module to put a nice easy-to-use GUI around oprofile either.
This is one of those
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 04:49 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
I didn't need to write a new kernel module to enable that
thirteen-character shell script, and I don't believe one needs to write a
new kernel module to put a nice easy-to-use GUI around oprofile
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:44:29 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 13:07 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 13:07 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > > feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line kernel
> > >
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line kernel
> > module. sysprof is here. it works.
>
> > the gui is REALLY nice.
>
> I guess
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line kernel module.
> sysprof is here. it works.
> the gui is REALLY nice.
I guess we have to agree to disagree here. Its plain useless from my
POV.
> I think it's the wrong
t; On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:37 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof
> > > > tool
> > > >
> > > > The sysprof tool is
7 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
> > > >
> > > > The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out
ECTED]>
> > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
> > >
> > > The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
> > > userspace is spending CPU time. See
> > > http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/
> &g
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:16:15 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:37 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
>
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:37 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
>
> The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
> userspace is spending
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
>
> The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
> userspace is spending CPU time. Se
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:37 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
http
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:16:15 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:37 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI
PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/
for more information and screenshots on this tool
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:39 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:16:15 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:37 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface
: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof
tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out
where userspace is spending CPU time. See
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/
for more information
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line kernel module.
sysprof is here. it works.
the gui is REALLY nice.
I guess we have to agree to disagree here. Its plain useless from my
POV.
I think it's the wrong
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line kernel
module. sysprof is here. it works.
the gui is REALLY nice.
I guess we have to
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 13:07 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line kernel
module. sysprof is
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:44:29 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 13:07 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
feel
From: Soren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/
for more information and scree
From: Soren Sandmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
The sysprof tool is a very easy to use GUI tool to find out where
userspace is spending CPU time. See
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/
for more information and screenshots
80 matches
Mail list logo
