1. Field
This disclosure generally relates to a computing environment. More particularly, the disclosure relates to sampling technology.
2. General Background
Either time-based or hardware event-based sampling technology is typically utilized in application profiling tools to determine the specific usage of resources. A current approach is to periodically generate an interrupt to take a sample. When the interrupt is taken, sample data is collected and recorded. Examples of the sample data are the interrupted process/thread, the instruction being executed or, optionally, the data address being accessed at the time of the sample. At a later time the collected data is aggregated, and reports are generated showing sample distribution by address, symbol, process, etc. A variety of tools are based on this technology. The full execution context of the sample is not typically recorded and not available in reports.
Attempts have been made to improve this technology by getting call stacks at the time of the sample. The existing set of tools may either attempt to walk the call stack directly or invoke functions on a separate (sampler) thread to obtain the interrupted thread's call stack. Attempting to walk the call stack at the interrupt level is not ideal, because some applications may have stacks that have been paged out. In addition, stack walking code typically does memory allocations, which are not allowed at the interrupt level. As a result, a user-mode sampling thread may be employed to walk the call stacks when requested. On multiprocessor systems, requesting that a separate thread gather the interrupted thread's call stack may allow the interrupted thread to migrate to a different processor and make forward progress, i.e., continue execution, while the call stack is being gathered. The gathered call stack will not reflect the state of the thread at the time it was interrupted.
In one aspect of the disclosure, a computer program product is provided. The computer program product includes a computer useable medium having a computer readable program. The computer readable program when executed on a computer causes the computer to generate a sample based on an event. Further, the computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to identify, with a dispatch monitor, a next dispatched monitored thread that is dispatched on a current processor. In addition, the computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to set a processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread such that the next dispatched monitored thread runs only on the current processor without being able to migrate to a different processor. The computer readable program when executed on the computer also causes the computer to retrieve, with a sampler thread that runs on the current processor, a next dispatched monitored thread call stack after the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread has been set to the current processor. In addition, the computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to restore the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread after the next dispatched monitored thread call stack has been obtained. The computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to record the call stack for the next dispatched monitored thread.
In another aspect of the disclosure, a process is provided. The process generates a sample based on an event. Further, the process identifies, with a dispatch monitor, a next dispatched monitored thread that is dispatched by a current processor. In addition, the process sets the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread such that the next dispatched monitored thread runs only on the current processor without being able to migrate to a different processor. The process also retrieves, with a sampler thread that runs on the current processor, a next dispatched monitored thread call stack after the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread has been set to the current processor. In addition, the process restores the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread after the next dispatched monitored thread call stack has been obtained. The process also records the call stack for the next dispatched monitored thread.
In yet another aspect of the disclosure, a system is provided. The system includes a current processor that generates a sample based on an event. Further, the system includes an operating system that (i) identifies, with a dispatch monitor, a next dispatched monitored thread that is dispatched by the current processor and (ii) sets the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread such that the next dispatched monitored thread runs only on the current processor without being able to migrate to a different processor. In addition, the system includes a profiler that (i) retrieves, with a sampler thread that is configured to run only on the current processor, a next dispatched monitored thread call stack after the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread has been set to the current processor, (ii) restores the processor affinity of the next dispatched monitored thread after the next dispatched monitored thread call stack has been obtained, and (iii) records the call stack for the next dispatched monitored thread.
In another aspect of the disclosure, a computer program product is provided. The computer program product includes a computer useable medium having a computer readable program. The computer readable program when executed on a computer causes the computer to generate a sample based on an event. Further, the computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to identify, with a dispatch monitor, a last dispatched monitored thread that is dispatched by a current processor. In addition, the computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to set the processor affinity of the last dispatched monitored thread such that the last dispatched monitored thread runs only on the current processor without being able to migrate to a different processor. The computer readable program when executed on the computer also causes the computer to retrieve, with a sampler thread that runs on the current processor, a last dispatched monitored thread call stack after the processor affinity of the last dispatched monitored thread has been set to the current processor. In addition, the computer readable program when executed on the computer causes the computer to restore the processor affinity of the last dispatched monitored thread after the last dispatched monitored thread call stack has been obtained. The computer readable program when executed on the computer also causes the computer to record the call stack for the last dispatched monitored thread.
The above-mentioned features of the present disclosure will become more apparent with reference to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein like reference numerals denote like elements and in which:
A method and system utilizes sampling technology to determine why one or more processors are not being fully utilized. Determining why an application running on the processor or processors does not scale can be very difficult. In some environments, especially those supporting transaction processing, it is important to determine the maximum transaction rate and to drive the system to fully utilize all processing resources. When the maximum transaction rate is reached, but not all processors are being fully utilized, there is some type of bottleneck preventing the full utilization. By determining the context for the last thread that was executing before a processor has gone idle, i.e., the to_idle_thread, and/or the context for the first thread executed after the processor has work to do, i.e., the from_idle_thread, information may be obtained to help to determine the cause of the bottleneck.
One approach is to gather call stacks for those threads that may have contributed to a bottleneck. That is, for example, the sampling code may simply get call stacks for only those threads that most recently ran on the processor that is idle at the time of the sample. This involves keeping track of which thread has run on which processor, in order to gather the call stacks for the right threads. However, those threads may migrate and execute on other processors while call stacks are being gathered.
Keeping all processors busy, other than the one on which the call stack will be gathered, may prevent thread migration. This could be accomplished by having sampler threads spin on those processors until the call stack is obtained for the thread of interest, but this may impair overall application performance.
Instead, by preventing the thread of interest from migrating to a different processor, which may be done in an embodiment, by setting its processor affinity to restrict it to only running on one processor, the other processors do not have to be spun so that the other processors are free to continue running the application. Thus, by preventing thread migration, there is minimal application performance degradation. Instead of severely affecting the performance of the application being profiled by waking up all sampler threads, i.e., one per processor, and having the sampler threads spin until the call stacks are retrieved, a method, system, and computer program product may set processor affinity to prevent thread migration with minimal performance impact to the application being profiled and also allow for sampling idle transitions. In one embodiment, for call stacks that have already been seen, only an occurrence count is incremented.
Either or both to_idle processing and/or from_idle processing may be utilized to set the processor affinity to prevent thread migration. A sampling approach is utilized.
Concurrent with sampling, the scheduler 108 monitors thread dispatches via dispatch monitoring code. This code is either part of the operating system or is added via a device driver or kernel extension. Information regarding the to_thread and/or from_thread may also be stored. Asynchronously from each other, a few things occur. The dispatch monitoring code is monitoring thread dispatches. Further, samples are being generated by the processors at a constant rate, i.e., time-based or at every n occurrences of an event, i.e., event-based. Also, sampler threads are listening for commands to cause them to retrieve the call stack of a thread of interest, which is performed by the profiler 104. A sampler thread is a profiler thread. Many sampler threads may be utilized as a plurality of processors may be utilized. Each sampler thread has an affinity to a single processor. Sampler threads may be very high priority threads so that they run immediately when signaled to do work such as retrieving a target thread's call stack. The target thread is the thread whose call stack is to be obtained. Further, a target processor is the processor on which the target thread was running and on which affinity is set so that the target thread remains on that processor until its call stack is obtained.
Once a determination is made as a result of sampling either to_idle or from_idle, a target thread's call stack is to be obtained. The target thread is prevented from making any forward progress during that time, unless forward progress is required in order to allow the call stack to be retrieved. In other words, the target thread is kept where it is until the call stack is gathered. Afterward, the target thread may resume. Since call stacks are gathered by profiler sampler threads, the target thread could potentially begin running on another available processor. By the time the sampler thread begins gathering the call stack, the target thread may no longer be at the point where it was sampled, and the call stack would not accurately reflect where the target thread was at the time of the sample.
Instead of significantly hindering application performance by “boxing out” the target thread from processors other than the target processor (i.e., giving all the other processors busy work that is not useful to make them spin so that they are not available for the target thread to run on), the set of processors on which the target thread may run are restricted to the target processor. In other words, the remaining processors do not spin and may continue to do real work. Only the target processor is affected while the target thread's call stack is being retrieved. Once the target's call stack is retrieved, the target thread is allowed to run on any available processor again. The processor affinity is set so that the target thread can run only on the one processor to which it has affinity to.
The sampling system 100 may have a plurality of processors. For example, the sampling system 100 may have a first processor 112, a second processor 114, . . . , and an nth processor 116. Only one thread can run on each processor at a given time. However, that thread can potentially run on a different processor and at a different time. In the sampling system 100, one or more processors generate interrupts, either time-based or event-based. An interrupt may initiate a sample. Accordingly, each of the processors may generate an interrupt irrespective of the status of each of the other processors, e.g., being idle or not being idle. The interrupt for each processor is generated by hardware and handled by an interrupt handler 110, which determines if the processor on which the interrupt occurred is idle, i.e., if no thread is running on the particular processor, or is not idle. The interrupt handler 110 initiates the gathering of call stacks. Further, the interrupt handler may notify or signal a profiler sampler thread. In one embodiment, if the interrupt handler 110 determines that a particular processor is idle, the interrupt handler 110 may send a flag such as a deferred processing flag to a scheduler 108, which then may or may not schedule a sampler thread to be run on that particular processor to sample the target thread. To avoid thread migration during sampling, the processor affinity of a thread to a particular processor may be established. For a from_idle thread, the scheduler 108 sets the processor affinity. For a to_idle thread, the interrupt handler 110 or the profiler 104 may set the processor affinity.
During from_idle processing, a notification may be sent from the scheduler 108 to the profiler 104. The first interesting monitored thread that wakes up and runs after a processor is idle is likely to be the thread causing the bottleneck. As the system runs, the dispatch monitoring code is waiting to be told to save the next interesting thread to run, e.g., watching the setting of the deferred processing flag. The sampling code tells the dispatch monitoring code to do this by sending/setting a deferred processing flag after a sample on which the processor is idle. The dispatch monitoring code will save the first interesting/monitored thread that runs after the processor was detected to be idle in a previous sample. At the same time, as samples occur, a determination is made as to whether the processor is idle or not. If the processor is busy, nothing is done. If the processor is idle, the deferred processing flag is set for the dispatch monitoring code to begin monitoring thread dispatches and to save the next interesting/monitored thread to be scheduled on the processor. The dispatch monitoring code then clears the deferred processing flag. The sample is then completed.
The same processing may happen on more than one processor at a time. For example if two processors are idle and happen to be dispatching interesting threads at approximately the same time, then two sampler threads may retrieve call stacks at the same time.
Further, a to_idle notification may be sent from the interrupt handler 110 to the profiler 104. The last interesting/monitored thread to run on a processor before it goes to idle is likely to be affected by some resources contention. For example, the thread may not continue because it is waiting on some contended resource. No other threads are available to run after a to_idle thread. As the system runs, the dispatch monitoring code remembers the last interesting thread to run on each processor. Since the thread that is now being remembered may have been previously remembered on a different processor, it is removed from the other processors' remembered list. At the same time, periodic samples are occurring that are either time based or event based. At each sample, a determination is made as to whether the processor is idle or not. If the processor is busy, nothing is done. If the processor is idle, then a determination is made as to whether an interesting monitored thread last ran on the processor. If an interesting thread last ran on the processor, then the thread's processor affinity is set to the current processor.
In one embodiment, only the from_idle_thread is utilized. In an alternative embodiment, only the to_idle_thread is utilized. In yet another alternative embodiment, both the from_idle_thread and the to_idle_thread are utilized.
In another embodiment, a component such as a dispatch monitor may be utilized in conjunction with the scheduler 108. The dispatch monitor may be part of the operating system 106 or may be added as part of a kernel extension or device driver. In another embodiment, a component such as an interrupt back-end worker, offlevel processing worker, interrupt backend worker, or the like may be added as part of a kernel extension or device driver. The component is needed because the set of actions that can be performed at interrupt level is limited and some of the work must be deferred until a subsequent time, after the interrupt handler has completed.
The profiler 104 may retrieve the call stack, i.e., the execution context. Further, the profiler 104 may restore the processor affinity.
In one embodiment, idle transition reporting for the last monitored thread before the processor has gone idle may be supported by maintaining a last dispatched entry in a per processor table. When a time based sample occurs and the sample interrupts a processor that is idle, the sampler thread is woken and gets the call stack of the last monitored thread. Its call stack is walked into a tree and the base to_idle count of the leaf node of the call stack just inserted is incremented. In order to get a call stack of the from_idle monitored thread that reflects its state at the time it went idle, either the call stack must be retrieved at the time the processor is idle or at the time it is determined that the thread is to be dispatched, before it gets a chance to execute. In either case, the call stack for the first monitored thread dispatched after a to_idle sample is taken is walked into a tree and the base from_idle metric count of the leaf node of the call stack just inserted is incremented. Reports can be generated and viewed.
When a sample is taken and it is determined that the processor is idle, the sampling code indicates to the dispatcher monitoring code that the next dispatched monitored thread on that processor needs to be sampled. That thread is identified in the per processor control block and is not updated until the next sample is taken.
When the dispatcher monitoring code detects that a from idle thread call stack should be recorded and the thread to be dispatched is a monitored thread, then it may cause the sampler thread to be dispatched instead. In one embodiment, this may be done by queuing an interrupt back-end or Second Level Interrupt Handler with an indication to force the sampling thread to process the call stack for the monitored thread. In another embodiment, the dispatching monitoring code may directly force the sampling thread to be dispatched next with the information needed to get the call stack for the monitored thread. This information could be passed by simply updating the from idle monitored thread identification in a mapped sample data area.
If the call stack for the from_idle thread cannot be retrieved before it is dispatched, then call stacks for threads not currently being executed may be retrieved at the time the processor is idle. The stacks may be restricted to a subset, such as, only those that were last dispatched on the processor that is idle. There may be other criteria, such as, excluding threads that have not previously returned stacks or threads that are identified as daemon threads. If the from_idle thread's stack was captured at the time the processor was idle, then that previously captured call stack may be used at a later time, such as, at the next sample. The subset of threads may be restricted to only those that were last dispatched on the processor that is idle. Different sampler threads could be retrieving stacks concurrently. Some amount of logic would identify the list of threads whose call stacks are being retrieved and to ensure that they are not duplicated as a result of timing issues on a different processor.
The processes described herein may be implemented in one or more general, multi-purpose or single-purpose microprocessors. Such microprocessors will execute instructions, either at the assembly, compiled or machine-level, to perform the processes. Those instructions can be written by one of ordinary skill in the art following the description of the figures corresponding to the processes and stored or transmitted on a computer readable medium. The instructions may also be created using source code or any other known computer-aided design tool.
The processor 902 is coupled, either directly or indirectly, to the memory 912 through a system bus. The memory 912 can include local memory employed during actual execution of the program code, bulk storage, and/or cache memories which provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution.
The input/output devices 904 can be coupled directly to the system 900 or through intervening input/output controllers. Further, the input/output devices 904 can include a keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, a microphone for capturing speech commands, a pointing device, and other user input devices that will be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the input/output devices 904 can include a receiver, transmitter, speaker, display, image capture sensor, biometric sensor, etc. In addition, the input/output devices 404 can include storage devices such as a tape drive, floppy drive, hard disk drive, compact disk (“CD”) drive, digital video disk (“DVD”) drive, etc.
Network adapters may also be coupled to the system 900 to enable the system 900 to become coupled to other systems, remote printers, or storage devices through intervening private or public networks. Modems, cable modems, and Ethernet cards are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters.
It should be understood that the method and system described herein can take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment containing both hardware and software elements. If software is utilized to implement the method or system, the software can include but is not limited to firmware, resident software, microcode, etc. Although only one microprocessor is explicitly shown in the illustrated embodiment of
Any of the configurations described herein may be utilized with a virtual machine. A virtual machine may be configured to keep track of calling state and return that state referring to a virtual machine supported interface to return call stacks. For instance, information about execution of threads may be obtained through trace data. This information may include call stack information obtained from call stacks associated with threads of interest. A virtual machine may be utilized to obtain the call stack information. Various approaches may be utilized by the virtual machine to obtain the call stack information. For example, entry/exit events, an application timer tick, or instrumenting codes that sample the instrumented values may be utilized. A selected sampling thread may send a call to the virtual machine to obtain the call stack information. The selected sampling thread may make the call to the virtual machine through a virtual machine tool interface. The virtual machine tool interface may return call stack information to the sampling thread or may store the call stack information in some work area. The obtained information may be placed into a tree for later analysis.
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method, or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (“LAN”) or a wide area network (“WAN”), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).
Aspects of the present invention are described below with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be supplied to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus, such that the processor and instructions provide a machine that implements functions and actions specified in the one or more flowcharts or block diagrams herein. The “processor” of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus may be referred to herein as a “microprocessor.” However, the term “microprocessor” should not be interpreted as being limited to a single-chip central processing unit or any other particular type of programmable data processing apparatus, unless explicitly so stated.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks. The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
Reference throughout this Specification to “one embodiment,” “an embodiment,” or similar language means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Thus, appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment,” “in an embodiment,” and similar language throughout this Specification may, but do not necessarily, all refer to the same embodiment. Furthermore, the described features, structures, or characteristics of the invention may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments. Correspondingly, even if features are initially claimed as acting in certain combinations, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination can be directed to a subcombination or variation of a subcombination.
While the apparatus and method have been described in terms of what are presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that the disclosure need not be limited to the disclosed embodiments. The disclosure is intended to cover various modifications and similar arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the claims, the scope of which should be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and similar structures. The present disclosure includes any and all embodiments of the following claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5305454 | Record et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5379432 | Orton et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5404529 | Chernikoff et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5465328 | Dievendorff et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5473777 | Moeller et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5475845 | Orton et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5544318 | Schmitz et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5625359 | Wilson et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5682537 | Davies et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5751789 | Farris et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5764241 | Elliott et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5768500 | Agrawal et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5913213 | Wikstrom et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5930516 | Watts et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 6002872 | Alexander, III et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6012094 | Leymann et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6055492 | Alexander, III et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6108654 | Chan et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112225 | Kraft et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6125363 | Buzzeo et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6128611 | Doan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6158024 | Mandal | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6178440 | Foster et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6199075 | Ungar et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6233585 | Gupta et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6338159 | Alexander, III et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6438512 | Miller | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6442572 | Leymann et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6449614 | Marcotte | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6553564 | Alexander, III et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6601233 | Underwood | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6625602 | Meredith et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6633897 | Browning et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6651243 | Berry et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6654948 | Konuru et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6658652 | Alexander, III et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6662358 | Berry et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6662359 | Berry et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6681230 | Blott et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6697802 | Ma et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6697935 | Borkenhagen et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6728955 | Berry et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6728959 | Merkey | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6742016 | Bhoj et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6751789 | Berry et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6857120 | Arnold et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6874074 | Burton et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6880086 | Kidder et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6904594 | Berry et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6931354 | Jones et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6941552 | Beadle et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6954922 | Liang | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6976263 | Delaney | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6993246 | Pan et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 7000047 | Nguyen et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7020696 | Perry et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7028298 | Foote | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7047258 | Balogh et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7093081 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7114036 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7114150 | Dimpsey et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7162666 | Bono | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7178145 | Bono | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7206848 | Zara et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
| 7222119 | Ghemawat et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
| 7257657 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7278141 | Accapadi et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7284238 | Inagaki et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7296130 | Dimpsey et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7321965 | Kissell | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7325108 | Tuel | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7398518 | Dichter | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7426730 | Mathews et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7458078 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7474991 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7496918 | Dice et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7526757 | Levine et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7529914 | Saha et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7574587 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7584332 | Kogge et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7587364 | Crumbach et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7610585 | Shpeisman et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7624137 | Bacon et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7653895 | James-Roxby et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
| 7688867 | Kizhepat | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7689867 | Rosenbluth et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7716647 | Loh et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7721268 | Loh et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7779238 | Kosche et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7788664 | Janakiraman et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7921075 | Herness et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7921875 | Moriiki et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7925473 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7962913 | Accapadi et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7962924 | Kuiper et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7996593 | Blackmore et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 7996629 | Wan et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8018845 | Ruello et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8024735 | Rudd et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8117599 | Edmark et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8117618 | Holloway et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8132170 | Kuiper et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8136124 | Kosche et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8141053 | Levine | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8156495 | Chew et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8191049 | Levine et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8286134 | Jones et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8381215 | Johnson et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8566795 | Dewitt, Jr. et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 20020007363 | Vaitzblit | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020016729 | Breitenbach et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020038332 | Alverson et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020073103 | Bottomley et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20030004970 | Watts | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030023655 | Sokolov et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061256 | Mathews et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030083912 | Covington, III et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233394 | Rudd et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040068501 | McGoveran | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093510 | Nurmela | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040142679 | Kearns et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148594 | Williams | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162741 | Flaxer et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040163077 | Dimpsey et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040178454 | Kuroda et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193510 | Catahan, Jr. et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215614 | Doyle et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215768 | Oulu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040216112 | Accapadi et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220931 | Guthridge et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220932 | Seeger et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220933 | Walker | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268316 | Fisher et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050021354 | Brendle et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050080806 | Doganata et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086455 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091663 | Bagsby | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050102493 | DeWitt et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050102673 | DeWitt et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138443 | Cooper | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149585 | Bacon et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050155018 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050155019 | Levine et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050166187 | Das et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050204349 | Lewis et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050246461 | Accapadi et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050256961 | Alon et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050262130 | Mohan | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050273757 | Anderson | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050273782 | Shpeisman et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004757 | Watts | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060023642 | Roskowski et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031837 | Theurer | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060059486 | Loh et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060072563 | Regnier et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080486 | Yan | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095571 | Gilgen et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060130001 | Beuch et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060136914 | Marascio et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149877 | Pearson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167955 | Vertes | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184769 | Floyd et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212657 | Tuel | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218290 | Lin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259911 | Weinrich et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282400 | Kalavacharla et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282707 | Rosenbluth et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070006168 | Dimpsey et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070033589 | Nicholas et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150904 | Kim et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070169003 | Branda et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070171824 | Ruello et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220495 | Chen et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220515 | Dewitt, Jr. et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226139 | Crumbach et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20080082761 | Herness et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080082796 | Merten et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080091679 | Herness et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080091712 | Daherkar et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080148240 | Jones et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080148241 | Jones et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080148299 | Daherkar et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080177756 | Kosche et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189687 | Levine et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080196030 | Buros et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080263325 | Kudva et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080307441 | Kuiper et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090007075 | Edmark et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090044198 | Kuiper et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083002 | DeWitt et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090100432 | Holloway et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106762 | Accapadi et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090178036 | Levine | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090187909 | Russell et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090187915 | Chew et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204978 | Lee et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210649 | Wan et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090235247 | Cho et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090235262 | Ceze et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090241095 | Jones et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271549 | Blackmore et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292846 | Park et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300224 | Duffy et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017447 | Jones et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017581 | Clift et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017583 | Kuiper et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017584 | Jones et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017789 | DeWitt, Jr. et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017804 | Gupta et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100036981 | Ganesh et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100333071 | Kuiper et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110307640 | Jones et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110320173 | Levine | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120191893 | Kuiper et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1614555 | May 2005 | CN |
| 649084 | Apr 1995 | EP |
| 000689141 | Dec 1995 | EP |
| 1603307 | Dec 2005 | EP |
| 11-327951 | Nov 1999 | JP |
| 2002-055848 | Feb 2002 | JP |
| 2004-199330 | Jul 2004 | JP |
| 2005-141392 | Jun 2005 | JP |
| 2008-257287 | Oct 2008 | JP |
| 2009098500 | Sep 2009 | KR |
| WO2009014868 | Jan 2009 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| US 8,589,928, 11/2013, Kuiper et al. (withdrawn) |
| Asokan-et al.; “Providing Time-and Space-Efficient Procedure Calls for Asynchronous Software Thread Integration”; pp. 167-187; Sep. 2004. |
| Mohanty-et al.; “A Hierarchical Approach for Energy Efficient Application Design Using Heterogeneous Embedded Systems”; pp. 243-255; Oct.-Nov. 2003. |
| Von Behren-et al.; “Capriccio: Scalable Threads for Internet Services”; ACM Digital Library; pp. 268-280; Oct. 2003. |
| Foong-et al.; “Architectural Characterization of Processor Affinity in Network Processing”; IEEE; 2005. |
| Milton, Scott; “Thread Migration in Distributed Memory Multicomputers”, The Australian National University, Joint Computer Science Technical Report Series, Feb. 1998. |
| Abdel-Shafi, et al.; “Efficient User-Level Thread Migration and Checkpointing on Windows NT Clusters”, Proceedings of the 3rd USENIX Windows NT Symposium, Jul. 12-13, 1999. |
| Tullsen, et al. “Handling Long-latency Loads in a Simultaneous Multithreading Processor,” IEEE, 2001, pp. 318-327. |
| Purser, et al. “A Study of Slipstream Processors,” IEEE, 2000, pp. 269-280. |
| Choi, et al. “Deterministic Replay of Java Mulithreaded Applications,” ACM SIGMETRICS Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Tools (SPDT), Aug. 1998, pp. 48-59. |
| Alkalaj, et al. “Performance of Multi-Threaded Execution in a Shared-Memory Multiprocessor,” IEEE, 1991, p. 330-333. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/EP2011/057574 dated Aug. 2, 2011. |
| IBM, “Pacing support for time Based Context Sampling,” ip.com, Jan. 22, 2009. |
| Harkema, et al. Performance Monitoring of Java Applications, Jul. 2002. |
| Alexander, et al. A unifying approach to performance analysis in the java environment. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 39, No. 1, 2000. |
| IBM. “Process and Thread Sampling—Target Selection in Interrupt mode,” ip.com, Jul. 16, 2008. |
| Cao, Zhongbo, et al., “A Study of Java Virtual Machine Scalability issues on SMP Systems,” IEEE, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization. Oct. 6-8, 2005, pp. 119-128. |
| Chen, Liang, et al., “Resource Allocation in a Middleware for Streaming Data,” Middleware 2004 Companion, 2nd Workshop on Middleware for Grid Computing, ACM, 2004, pp. 5-10. |
| Korochkin, Dmitry, et al., “Experimental Performance Analysis of the Ada95 and Java Parallel Program on SMP Systems,” SIGAda'02, Dec. 8-12, 2002, ACM, pp. 53-56. |
| Tam, David, et al., “Thread Clustering: Sharing-Aware Scheduling on SMP-CMP-SMT Multiprocesors,” EuroSys'07, Mar. 21-23, 2007, pp. 47-58. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 3, 2010 for International Application No. PCT/EP2010/058486, 8 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Nov. 29, 2010, 1 page. |
| Whaley, John, “A Portable Sampling-Based Profiler for Java Virtual Machines,” Proceedings of the ACM 2000 Java Grande Conference, Jun. 3, 2000, pp. 78-87. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 3 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 2 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 3 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 3 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed Jan. 21, 2011 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 2 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed Jun. 30, 2009 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 4 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 1 p. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 2 pp. |
| Mansouri-Samani, M. and M. Sloman, “A Configurable Event Service for Distributed Systems”, © 1996 IEEE, Total 8 pp. |
| Meyer, K., B. Gas, and J. Doughty, “The Devolution of Functional Analysis”, Oct. 26, 1982, Total 26 pp. |
| Rinard, M.C. and P.C. Diniz, “Eliminating Synchronization Bottlenecks Using Adaptive Replication”, © 2003 ACM, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Sysems, vol. 25, Nol. 3, May 2003, pp. 316-359. [Also, Total 44 pp.]. |
| Tidwell, D., J. Snell, and P. Kulchenko, “Programming Web Services with SOAP”, O'Reilly, First Edition Dec. 2001, ISBN: 0-596-00095-2, 216 pages, Total 225 pp. |
| Websphere 6.0.2, “Processing Events in a Sequence”, IBM, [online], [Retrieved on May 12, 2011]. Retrieved from the Internet at <URL: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dmndhelp/v6rxmx/topic/com.ibm.wbit.help.wirin . . . >, Oct. 7, 2005, Total 9 pp. |
| Amendment 1, May 30, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Sep. 25, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed Jun. 30, 2009 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 15 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Oct. 9, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed Jan. 21, 2011 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 25 pp. |
| Reply Brief, Jun. 25, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 12 pp. |
| Examiner's Answer, Oct. 27, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 37 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Mar. 2, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 21 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Oct. 18, 2012, U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 23 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Jun. 14, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 22 pp. |
| Response to Final Office Action 1, Sep. 14, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed Jul. 15, 2008 by K. G. Kuiper et al., Total 19 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1, Aug. 20, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 8 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Nov. 6, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed Jun. 30, 2009 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 10 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Jan. 3, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed Jun. 30, 2009 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 12 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Jan. 18, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 11 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1, Jan. 17, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed Jun. 30, 2009 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 7 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Feb. 5, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed Jan. 21, 2011 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Arpaci-Dusseau, Andrea Carol, “Implicit Coscheduling: Coordinated Scheduling with Implicit Information in Distributed Systems”, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 19, No. 3, Aug. 2011, pp. 283-331 [Also Total 49 pp.]. |
| Barcia, R. and J. Brent, “IBM WebSphere Developer Technical Journal: Building SOA Solutions with the Service Component Architecture—Part 1”, Oct. 26, 2005, Total. |
| Cerami, Ethan, “Web Services Essentials”, Feb. 2002, O'Reilly, First Edition, Total 286 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Oct. 24, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 16 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Apr. 14, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 12 pp. |
| Amendment 3, Sep. 8, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 16 pp. |
| Appeal Brief. Mar. 26, 2012, for U.S. Appl. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 22 pp. |
| Examiner's Answer, Apr. 26, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609,filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 15 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Jan. 19, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 25 pp. |
| Final Office Action 2, Oct. 24, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 23 pp. |
| Notice of Appeal, Jan. 24, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 2 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Jul. 27, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 22 pp. |
| Office Action 3, Jun. 8, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,609, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 39 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Dec. 16, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 16 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Jun. 16, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 13 pp. |
| Amendment 3, Nov. 15, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 12 pp. |
| Appeal Brief, Aug. 3, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 26 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Mar. 16, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 34 pp. |
| Final Office Action 2, Mar. 3, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 42 pp. |
| Notice of Appeal, Jun. 3, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 2 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Sep. 16, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 44 pp. |
| Office Action 3, Aug. 17, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 34 pp. |
| Reply Brief, Dec. 27, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/549,613, filed Oct. 13, 2006 by A.R. Daherkar et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Nov. 13, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 8 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Jan. 8, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 18 pp. |
| Amendment 3, Aug. 11, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 24 pp. |
| Amendment 4, Mar. 1, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 22 pp. |
| Amendment 5, Aug. 19, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, May 14, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 42 pp. |
| Final Office Action 2, May 28, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 49 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1, Sep. 7, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 24 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 2, Nov. 23, 2010, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed on Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 27 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Oct. 27, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Office Action 2, Dec. 24, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 8 pp. |
| Office Action 3, Dec. 1, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,962, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 39 pp. |
| Amendment 1, Dec. 8, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 7 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Apr. 13, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 9 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1, Jan. 14, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 9 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 2, May 15, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 3, Jun. 22, 2009, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 10 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Nov. 14, 2008, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/536,941, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by E.N. Herness et al., Total 18 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Feb. 17, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Aug. 7, 2007 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 38 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Jul. 15, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Aug. 7, 2007 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 17 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1, Oct. 25, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Aug. 7, 2007 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 51 pp. |
| Response to Office Action 1, May 17, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Aug. 7, 2007 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 13 pp. |
| Response to Final Office Action 1, Oct. 17, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Aug. 7, 2007 by K. G. Kuiper et al., Total 8 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Nov. 21, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed on Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 19 pp. |
| Response to Office Action 1, Feb. 20, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 17 pp. |
| Office Action 1, Jun. 27, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed Jun. 30, 2009 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 21 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Mar. 18, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed Jan. 21, 2011 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 30 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 2 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/834,779, filed Aug. 7, 2007 by K. G. Kuiper et al., Total 2 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 4 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed Sep. 29, 2006 by F.E. Levine, Total 3 pp. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed Jan. 21, 2011 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 3 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, Mar. 20, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 35 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Jun. 19, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 12 pp. |
| Amendment 2, Jun. 13, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed Jan. 21, 2011 by Kuiper et al., Total 7 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 2, May 24, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 14 pp. |
| Office Action, Apr. 25, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 45 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, dated Sep. 11, 2013, 22 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, dated Sep. 27, 2013, 20 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 3 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, dated Sep. 13, 2013, 11 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 1, Jul. 9, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed on Jan. 21, 2011 by Kuiper et al., Total 11 pp. |
| Response to Office Action, Jul. 22, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed on Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 12 pp. |
| Office Action 1 for CN Application No. 201080010002.9, dated Sep. 4, 2013, 9 pp. (Includes copy of Information Materials for IDS Document). |
| Notice of Allowance, dated Nov. 12, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/494,469, filed on Jun. 30,2009, 14 pp. |
| U.S. Pat. No. 7,458,078, dated Nov. 25, 2008, is an English language equivalent of CN1614555, dated May 11, 2005. |
| US Publication No. 2005/0102673, dated May 12, 2005, is an English language equivalent of CN1614555, dated May 11, 2005. |
| AIX Versions 3.2 and 4 Performance Tuning Guide, Performance Overview of the Virtual Memory Manager (VMM), Apr. 1997 http://nfosolutions.com/doc—link/C/a—doc—lib/aixbman/prftungd/vmmov.htm, 8 pp. |
| Binder, “Portable and Accurate Sampling Profiling for Java”, Software- Practice and Experience, vol. 36, Issue 6, May 2006, pp. 615-650. |
| Chanda et al., “Whodunit: Transactional Profiling for Multi-Tier Applications”, ACM, EuroSys'07, Mar. 2007 Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 17-30. |
| Dunlavey, “Performance Tuning with Instruction-Level Cost Derived from Call-Stack Sampling”, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 42(8), Aug. 2007, pp. 4-8. |
| Froyd et al., “Low-Overhead Call Path Profiling of Unmodified, Optimized Code”, ACM, ICS'05 Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 81-90. |
| Graham et al., “gprof: a Call Graph Execution Profiler,” Proceedings of the 1982 SIGPLAN Symposium on Compiler Construction, Jun. 1982m pp. 120-126. |
| Sun Java Real-Time System 2.001, Garbage Collection Guide, Nov. 21, 2007 http://download.oracle.com/javase/realtime/doc—2.0—u1/release/JavaRTSGarbageCollection.html, 12 pp. |
| Office Action 1, dated Dec. 19, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,053, 15 pp. |
| Response to Office Action 1, dated Mar. 19, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,053, 17 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, dated May 2, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,053, 16 pp. |
| Appeal Brief, dated Jul. 23, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,053, 23 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance, dated Jun. 13, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,053, 13 pp. |
| Office Action 1, dated Jan. 5, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,107, 21 pp. |
| Response to Office Action 1, dated Mar. 30, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,107, 15 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance, dated Jun. 6, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,107, 10 pp. |
| Office Action 1, dated Feb. 2, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,302, 16 pp. |
| Response to Office Action 1, dated Apr. 20, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,302, 24 pp. |
| Final Office Action 1, dated Jul. 20, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,302, 17 pp. |
| Appeal Brief, dated Dec. 13, 2011, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,302, 35 pp. |
| Examiner's Answer, dated Feb. 27, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,302, 20 pp. |
| Reply Brief, dated Apr. 27, 2012, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/235,302, 5 pp. |
| Supplemental Notice of Allowance 1, dated Nov. 19, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, 6 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 2, dated Dec. 9, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, 11 pp. |
| Response to Examination Report for GB Application No. 1212738.7, dated Dec. 11, 2013, 7 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 4, dated Jan. 17, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, 13 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 3, Mar. 20, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/011,621, filed on Jan. 21, 2011 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 20 pp. |
| Corrected Notice of Allowability, Apr. 25, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed on Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 7 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 5, Apr. 24, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/813,706, filed on Jun. 11, 2010 by S.T. Jones et al., Total 10 pp. |
| Corrected Notice of Allowability, Apr. 7, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed on Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 9 pp. |
| U.S. Pat. No. 6,002,872, dated Dec. 14, 1999, is an English language equivalent of JP11-327951, dated Nov. 30, 1999. |
| U.S. Pat. No. 7,284,238, dated Oct. 16, 2007, is an English language equivalent of JP2004-199330, dated Jul. 15, 2004. |
| Machine Translation of JP Publication No. 2002-055848, dated Feb. 20, 2002, 23 pp. |
| Machine Translation of JP Publication No. 2005-141392, dated Jun. 2, 2005, 18 pp. |
| Machine Translation of JP Publication No. 2008-257287, dated Oct. 23, 2008, 32 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 2, Feb. 14, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/824,217, filed on Jun. 27, 2010 by F.E. Levine, Total 21 pp. |
| Notice of Allowance 2, Nov. 20, 2013, for U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,047, filed on Jul. 15, 2008 by K.G. Kuiper et al., Total 35 pp. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20110289361 A1 | Nov 2011 | US |