Thanks Jonathan.
From somewhere, I saw CPU cycles % with LTTng is even 1-2% lower than vanilla.
Is it contributed by dynamic branch prediction or other instruction level
optimization?
In that way, the kernel or at least key libraries like libc is kind of
re-compiled, right?
Regards
Hai
--------------原始邮件--------------
发件人："Jonathan Rajotte-Julien "<jonathan.rajotte-jul...@efficios.com>;
发送时间：2019年7月16日(星期二) 晚上10:28
收件人："杨海" <hai.y...@magic-shield.com>;
抄送："lttng-dev "<lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>;
主题：Re: [lttng-dev] Pros and Cons of LTTng
-----------------------------------
Hi Hai,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:19:38AM +0800, 杨海 wrote:
> Obviously LTTng has much lower overhead compared to auditd, when we turn on
> all system calls and use the same load. Is it true for both user space and
> kernel space?
lttng-ust (userspace tracer) mostly use the same concept as the kerneltracer
(per-cpu ring buffers, binary output/CTF, delayed consumption of events, etc.).
There is some penalty for doing things in userspace since we need some
information from the kernel for each tracepoint hit (e.g the current cpu
number). But again most of these hot paths are quite optimized.
In any case I encourage you to try it out on your workload and lttng fit your
needs.
If you do not find a particular feature in the doc [1], do not hesitate to
contact
this mailing list for more information.
>So far I haven't seen any report compare LTTng and auditd,
> anyone knows?
I do not remember any conversation on this topic. After reading a bit on auditd,
lttng might be a good replacement depending on your constraints and needs.
[1] https://lttng.org/docs/v2.10/
Cheers
--
Jonathan Rajotte-Julien
EfficiOS
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
