On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:42:33PM -0500, Avishay Traeger wrote:
> 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 u
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
> > instrumenting its call
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 the latency of a function by
>
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 the instruction
> > > pointer
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 the latency of a function by
> > instrumenting its call site. Basically, I find the call instruction,
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 the instruction
> > pointer is moved to the call target. That explains the lower latency you
> > are seei
On 9/26/07, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: There was a thought of providing a facility to run a handler at
> function entry even when just a kretprobe is used. Maybe we need to
> relook at that; it'd have been useful in this case.
That would be really useful. I was wr
On 9/26/07, Avishay Traeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to measure the latency of foo(), I basically want kprobes to do this:
> pre_handler();
> foo();
> post_handler();
>
> The problem is that the latencies that I am getting are consistently low
> (~10,000 cycles). When I manually instrument
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
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 the latency of a function by
> > instrumenting its call site. Basically, I find the call instruction,
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
> 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-h
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
