From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Profiling support? Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: <87d2itc2zv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 11 12:17:49 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WDBLY-0001sv-14 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:17:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751658AbaBKLRo (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:17:44 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:47767 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbaBKLRn (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:17:43 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46810 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDBLS-0005ny-CK for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:17:42 -0500 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E6211E04F9; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:17:40 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Looking in the Makefile, I just find support for coverage reports using gcov. Whatever is there with "profile" in it seems to be for profile-based compilation rather than using gprof. Now since I've managed to push most of the runtime for basic git-blame operation out of blame.c proper, it becomes important to figure out where most of the remaining runtime (a sizable part of that being system time) is being spent. Loop counts like that provided by gcov (or am I missing something here?) are not helpful for that, I think I rather need the kind of per-function breakdown that gprof provides. Is there a reason there are no prewired recipes or advice for using gprof on git? Is there a way to get the work done, namely seeing the actual distribution of call times (rather than iterations) using gcov so that this is not necessary? -- David Kastrup