Re: KPROBES: Instrumenting a function's call site

[Abhishek Sagar]

On 9/26/07, Avishay Traeger <atraeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 the functions, the latency
> is about 20,000,000 cycles.  Clearly something is not right here.

Single-stepping is done with preemption (and on some archs like ARM,
interrupts) disabled. May be that is contributing to such a skew.

> Is this a known issue?  Instead of using the post-handler, I can try to
> add a kprobe to the following instruction with a pre-handler.  I was
> just curious if there was something fundamentally wrong with the
> approach I took, or maybe a bug that you should be made aware of.
>
> Please CC me on any replies (not subscribed to LKML).
>
> Thanks,
> Avishay
>
--
Regards
Abhishek Sagar

-
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/