From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: poky <poky@yoctoproject.org>
Subject: Re: Quick hack for profiling tasks
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:40:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1296520850.13501.16052.camel@rex> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1296520080.13501.15996.camel@rex>
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 00:28 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> One thing that is bugging me whilst I've been debugging some issues
> we're having with the libc/libgcc package dependency issue is how long
> do_package takes for libc. The question is where does it spend the time?
> Answer, I have no idea.
>
> I hacked together the patch below to find out. Its ugly and uses the
> boilerplate profiling code from cooker, cut and pasted here to profile
> the actual tasks that run.
>
> I've yet to look at the results but it should allow us to optimise the
> python tasks a bit if we can see where they spend time. I'm hoping this
> lets others look at that too and also it give us some hints as to how we
> might improve the core when turning on profiling in bitbake.
For eglibc this worked out as:
Tue Feb 1 00:33:21 2011 profile-eglibc_2.12.bb-do_package.log
8339733 function calls (8001600 primitive calls) in 877.972 CPU seconds
Ordered by: internal time
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
3206 321.887 0.100 322.422 0.101 package_do_filedeps:12(process_deps)
403 311.208 0.772 311.208 0.772 {posix.waitpid}
134054 69.860 0.001 69.860 0.001 {method 'read' of 'file' objects}
225554 23.367 0.000 23.367 0.000 {posix.stat}
866 20.279 0.023 20.279 0.023 {posix.system}
85562 19.406 0.000 19.406 0.000 {posix.chmod}
168083 16.691 0.000 16.691 0.000 {posix.lstat}
25824 14.399 0.001 14.399 0.001 {posix.rename}
55391 13.731 0.000 13.731 0.000 {open}
5325 9.019 0.002 9.019 0.002 {posix.popen}
2279 5.490 0.002 5.490 0.002 {method 'readlines' of 'file' objects}
6403 5.187 0.001 6.346 0.001 insane.bbclass:1(package_qa_hash_style)
19214 5.046 0.000 5.046 0.000 {posix.mkdir}
so its spending a third of the time in package_do_filedeps(), a lot of
which is in waitpid waiting for the process that was spawned.
Mark: Is there a way we could batch up the information rather than go
file by file? I'm going to look at this for other areas to improve too
but thats obviously one worthy of attention.
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-01 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-01 0:28 Quick hack for profiling tasks Richard Purdie
2011-02-01 0:40 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2011-02-01 1:43 ` Mark Hatle
2011-02-01 11:05 ` Richard Purdie
2011-02-01 15:38 ` Mark Hatle
2011-02-02 14:28 ` Richard Purdie
2011-02-03 11:22 ` Richard Purdie
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1296520850.13501.16052.camel@rex \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=poky@yoctoproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.