On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:22 -0800, David Sharp wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Douglas Santos > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>: > >> 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, can you explain how you're drawing that conclusion? Did Douglas > run this benchmark before on a previous kernel (I didn't see it if > so)?
Oops, no, I was thinking that this was from your tests. I remember asking you to try the new kernel. I think I got you and Douglas confused :-) -- Steve _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
