From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10515 invoked by alias); 27 May 2008 19:49:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 10508 invoked by uid 22791); 27 May 2008 19:49:35 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SARE_MSGID_LONG40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from el-out-1112.google.com (HELO el-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.162.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 May 2008 19:49:18 +0000 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o28so1144507ele.3 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 12:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.14.16 with SMTP id r16mr668395wfi.122.1211917755691; Tue, 27 May 2008 12:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.194.11 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2008 12:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <702ccd1e0805271249y2de9603cl6d2457749e709363@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:03:00 -0000 From: "Bruno Abinader" To: frysk@sourceware.org Subject: Frysk-utrace (utracer) performance comparison MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q2/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 Hi all, I would like to know if anyone have done or have thoughts about a performance comparison between frysk-utrace API usage vs. ptrace API usage. I can see some simple benchmarks like process attach/detach, syscall traces, etc. It would be nice to check for performance measurements like execution time, memory consumption etc. []s -- Bruno de Oliveira Abinader Mobile Linux Software (MLS) / Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia (INdT) Tel: +55 (92) 2126-1068