Message-ID: <1290029498.4ce449ba1679d@www.imp.polymtl.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:31:38 -0500
From: Douglas Santos <douglas.santos@polymtl.ca>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca, David Sharp <dhsharp@google.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>
Subject: Benchmarks of kernel tracing options 2 (ftrace, lttng and perf)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 911
Lines: 33

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
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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/