Sorry for reviving a thread from two months ago... :)
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 10:09 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Avishay Traeger wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am trying to use kprobes to measure the latency of a function by
> &
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 10:28 -0700, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:09:33AM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Avishay Traeger wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I am trying to use kprobes to measure t
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 22:57 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:09:35PM -0400, Avishay Traeger wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 14:33 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > > What happens when the "call" is singlestepped is that t
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 14:33 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> What happens when the "call" is singlestepped is that the instruction
> pointer is moved to the call target. That explains the lower latency you
> are seeing. You'll need to do something along the lines I suggested in
> the earl
Hello,
I am trying to use kprobes to measure the latency of a function by
instrumenting its call site. Basically, I find the call instruction,
and insert a kprobe with a pre-handler and post-handler at that point.
The pre-handler measures the latency (reads the TSC counter). The
post-handler meas
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 02:16 +0530, Karuna sagar K wrote:
> For some time I had been working on this file system test framework.
> Now I have a implementation for the same and below is the explanation.
> Any comments are welcome.
You may want to check out the paper "EXPLODE: A Lightweight, Genera
6 matches
Mail list logo
