Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager
Date: 2009-12-11 14:22:03
Message-ID: 7029FC2DB06B34D48EB8E155@[172.26.14.62]
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 10. Dezember 2009 23:55:49 -0500 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> If there's some real-world test where this probe costs 0.3%-0.4%, I
> think that is sufficient grounds for rejecting this patch. I
> understand the desire of people to be able to use dtrace, but our
> performance is too hard-won for me to want to give any measurable of
> it up for tracing and instrumentation hooks that will only be used by
> a small number of users in a small number of situations.

I repeated the pgbench runs per Greg's advice (see upthread) and it seems
there is actually a small slowdown which supports this argument,
unfortunately. After repeating the pgbench runs with and without the new
probes (note: i've used the new version of the patch, too), the numbers are
going to stabilize as follows:

without compiled probes: AVG(2531.68)
with compiled probes: AVG(2511.97)

I can repeat that tests over and over, but this doesn't seem to change the
whole picture (so there seems some real argument for a 0.4 - 0.6% cost, at
least on *my* machine here with pgbench).

--
Thanks

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-12-11 14:28:54 Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-12-11 14:20:58 Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security