[PATCH RFC] Summary of syscall latency

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:44:35PM +0100, Mark Hills wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:26:11AM +0100, Mark Hills wrote:
> > > Time spent in system time is not useful where a syscall depends on some 
> > > non-CPU resource, eg. typically open() or stat() to a network drive.
> > > 
> > > This patch adds a -w flag to produce a summary of the time difference 
> > > between beginning and end of the system call (ie. latency)
> > > 
> > > This functionality has been useful to profile slow processes that are not 
> > > CPU-bound.
> > > 
> > > An older commit 8050cdc mentions this:
> > > 
> > > > It might be useful to have a mode where we show wall clock time spent in 
> > > > syscalls, not CPU time. It might also be more accurate.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure how reasonably useful the crude profile of CPU "system time" 
> > > is. Is it better to replace the existing functionality with 
> > > wallclock/latency time, or does this justify the introduction of a new 
> > > flag, as below?
> > 
> > I think a new behavior justifies a new flag.  Another option is to treat
> > the same -c/-C option given twice as a request for this new behavior.
> 
> In which case the -w flag seems reasonable; given the two existing flags I 
> think the variations would be confusing for -c/-C given twice.

OK

> I'll prepare the final patch and send it. I assume I should add 
> Signed-off-by and a NEWS entry.

Yes, a NEWS entry would be great.
You can add Signed-off-by entry if you like, but it's not necessary.


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20140528/83cfe13a/attachment.bin>