From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1572 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2005 05:02:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 1566 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Dec 2005 05:02:44 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail7.hitachi.co.jp (HELO mail6.hitachi.co.jp) (133.145.228.42) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:02:41 +0000 Received: from mlsv5.hitachi.co.jp by mail6.hitachi.co.jp (8.9.3p3/3.7W-mail6) id OAA15796; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from mfilter-s3.hitachi.co.jp by mlsv5.hitachi.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) id jBG52aiu021012; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:36 +0900 Received: from vshuts3.hitachi.co.jp (unverified) by mfilter-s3.hitachi.co.jp (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with SMTP id ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:36 +0900 Received: from hsdlgw92.sdl.hitachi.co.jp ([133.144.7.20]) by vshuts3.hitachi.co.jp with SMTP id M2005121614023523952 ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:35 +0900 Received: from vgate2.sdl.hitachi.co.jp by hsdlgw92.sdl.hitachi.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W01100113) id OAA19281; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:35 +0900 Received: from maila.sdl.hitachi.co.jp ([133.144.14.196]) by vgate2.sdl.hitachi.co.jp (SAVSMTP 3.1.1.32) with SMTP id M2005121614023430129 ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:34 +0900 Received: from [192.168.16.226] ([192.168.16.226]) by maila.sdl.hitachi.co.jp (8.13.1/3.7W04031011) with ESMTP id jBG52YcZ023564; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:35 +0900 Message-ID: <43A24A66.7040405@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:37:00 -0000 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: ja, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" CC: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [SAMPLE][PATCH 1/3]BTI: Binary Transport Interface for SystemTap References: <43A12782.5010604@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 Hi, Frank Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > hiramatu wrote: >>[...] The systemtap script with BTI (*1) has about 1.4 micro secs >>of processing time. The systemtap script with ATI (*2) has about 4 >>micro secs of processing time. [...] > >>(*2) >>probe kernel.function("sys_gettimeofday") { >> log(string(get_tsc()) . string(get_cpu()) . string(pid()) . string(1)= >> . >>string(2). string(3). string(4). string(5)); >>} > > With the newer "print" statements, this expression is no longer state of the > art. How would this compare? OK. I measured the script using printf(). And the processing time is about 2.6 micro secs. So, I expects BTI still has low overhead. > printf("%d %d %d %d %d %d %d\n", get_tsc() /* we have that? */, > get_cpu(), pid(), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5); Oh, I forgot to write these functions. They are here: function get_tsc:long () %{ rdtscll(THIS->__retvalue); %} function get_cpu:long () %{ THIS->__retvalue = smp_processor_id(); %} -- Masami HIRAMATSU 2nd Research Dept. Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory E-mail: hiramatu@sdl.hitachi.co.jp