From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19560 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2009 11:08:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 19551 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Feb 2009 11:08:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f161.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f161.google.com) (209.85.218.161) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:08:43 +0000 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so7668477bwz.0 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:08:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.108.15 with SMTP id d15mr795165fap.62.1235560119712; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:08:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <49A3046E.3050403@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PThread profiling From: Daniel Tralamazza To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Josh Stone , systemtap@sourceware.org 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-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00535.txt.bz2 I was surprised with the low performance of static markers so did some oprofiling. Good news (as expected), there is no difference between the original glibc and the one with markers added. I'm running fedora 10 x86_64 under vmware fusion (2 vcpus & 768RAM) on a macbook pro 2.4GHz. Unfortunately vmware doesn't export perf counters so I used oprofile in timer interrupt mode. Here are some results http://pastebin.com/ffcf4cc3 for static markers (sunspider benchmark on firefox). Over 1/3 of all samples comes from traps (traps_64.c:71), I didn't know that even static markers use int3. Sunspider results for static markers http://tinyurl.com/bsjrof And baseline http://tinyurl.com/ct4pwm -- Daniel