[llvm-dev] [XRay][RFC] Tooling for XRay Trace Analysis
Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun Sep 11 22:24:53 PDT 2016
> On 10 Sep 2016, at 02:05, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:34 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9 Sep 2016, at 12:35, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 Sep 2016, at 01:21, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But I take it you mean (as detailed later) to have a separate format (could be a portable binary format, but currently discussing it as JSON/YAML/etc) that things are converted from that makes them portable?
> One thing worth mentioning on this regard is maybe we can use Flatbuffers (https://google.github.io/flatbuffers/) for the XRay log.
> For the secondary form (instead of YAML/JSON) or the primary form (the thing compiler-rt writes out)? Or as a form that would cover both use cases without the need to convert from one format to another?
The primary form -- I suspect the costs here would be acceptable it if it means that we're able to write it once in a single format and make that automatically be durable and portable. I suspect the bit swizzling is going to be dwarfed by the cost of writing to stable media anyway that it could be worth it.
Now this is still to be measured, but according to the benchmarks (https://google.github.io/flatbuffers/flatbuffers_benchmarks.html) encoding 1M times takes just 3.2 seconds -- ~3 microseconds each, right in the acceptable range of performance for I/O.
This allows us to write the tool to just deal with flat buffers that just works across platforms.
Does that make sense?
More information about the llvm-dev