From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Carlos O'Donell" Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 19:31:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [carlos@baldric.uwo.ca: Good news for glibc.] Message-Id: <20040105193154.GA9157@systemhalted> List-Id: References: <20040105183349.GC9004@colo.lackof.org> In-Reply-To: <20040105183349.GC9004@colo.lackof.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:06:38AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > I'd recommend q-tools. It will give you a (statistically collected) > call-graph, in addition to the flat profile and is completely > unintrusive (no recompilation etc needed). See my post for details: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m7075994721581 > > Oh, yeah, I'm slightly biased... ;-) Indeed! Looks very cool though. > The one limitation is that it doesn't work well for short-lived > processes. Also, it works in system-wide mode (collects info for > _all_ processes that happen to run over a given period of time). > > If you want per-process profiling, you could use qprof. It doesn't do > call-graphs (yet) and only works for dynamically linked programs, but > it's very easy to use. See: > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/qprof/ Looks good, It was just my wish to get LD_PROFILE working, what's easier than tacking on an environment variable to get a quick look at the calls made by a particular DSO? I'm 99.9% sure if upstream takes my patches this will fix LD_PROFILE for ia64 aswell. c.