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 > perf: 740 ns > > > E5405 system > kernel 2.6.36 > > -lttng 0.239 + 0.19.2modules + sys_getuid tracepoint + sys_getuid probe > + remove syscall_trace > > -ftrace and perf + sys_getuid tracepoint _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
