From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal |
Date: | 2006-06-20 12:36:12 |
Message-ID: | 20060620123612.GA24606@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:14:15PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM (Robert Lor) writes:
> > For DTrace, probes can be enabled using a D script. When the probes
> > are not enabled, there is absolutely no performance hit whatsoever.
>
> That seems inconceivable.
>
> In order to have a way of deciding whether or not the probes are
> enabled, there has *got* to be at least one instruction executed, and
> that can't be costless.
I think the trick is that the probe are enabled by overwriting bits of
code. So by default you might put a No-Op instruction and if you want
to trace you replace that with an illegal instruction or the special
one-byte INT3 instruction x86 system have for this purpose.
With a 17-stage pipelined processor I imagine the cost of a no-op would
indeed be almost unmeasurable (increase code size I suppose).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-20 12:57:14 | Re: shall we have a TRACE_MEMORY mode |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-20 12:02:34 | Re: shall we have a TRACE_MEMORY mode |