[carlos@baldric.uwo.ca: Good news for glibc.]

[carlos@baldric.uwo.ca: Good news for glibc.]

[Grant Grundler]

glibc profiling?
This was originally posted on debian-hppa/parisc-linux mailing lists.

grant

----- Forwarded message from Carlos O'Donell <carlos@baldric.uwo.ca> -----

Old-Return-Path: <carlos@baldric.uwo.ca>
X-Original-To: debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@baldric.uwo.ca>
To: John David Anglin <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org,
	debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, lamont@debian.org
Subject: Good news for glibc.
X-Useless-Header: listen, love, accept, mindfullness, patience, and humility. 
Resent-Message-ID: <AW1MyC.A.LG.3eQ-_@murphy>
Resent-From: debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-hppa@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/3162
List-Id: <debian-hppa.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-hppa@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-hppa-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-hppa-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-hppa-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-hppa/>
Resent-Sender: debian-hppa-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Mon,  5 Jan 2004 00:44:07 -0600 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at lackof.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 
	colo.lackof.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 testsºYES_00 autolearn=ham 
	version=2.60
X-Spam-Level: 

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 04:00:16PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> > The main issue was that the 'start' symbol needs to be canonicalized
> > before passing on to the gmon routines. This requires entry.h to be
> 
> I still think that using __c_f_f_c for this special case is overkill.

What could we use?

Good news, I just fixed LD_PROFILE so I can actually check to see what
functions take up too much time :) I think I inadvertently fixed it for
ia64 too... what do ia64 people use to profile glibc?

c.

A tempting peek! :)

  %   cumulative   self              self     total
 time   seconds   seconds    calls  us/call  us/call  name
  0.00      0.00     0.00    14000     0.00           cfree
  0.00      0.00     0.00     6000     0.00           memset
  0.00      0.00     0.00     2004     0.00           malloc
  0.00      0.00     0.00     2003     0.00           flockfile
  0.00      0.00     0.00     2003     0.00           funlockfile
  0.00      0.00     0.00     2001     0.00           __cxa_finalize
  0.00      0.00     0.00     1002     0.00           index
  0.00      0.00     0.00     1000     0.00           __GI__dl_close
  0.00      0.00     0.00     1000     0.00           __GI__dl_open
  0.00      0.00     0.00     1000     0.00           printf
  0.00      0.00     0.00     1000     0.00           puts
  0.00      0.00     0.00     1000     0.00           strlen
  0.00      0.00     0.00        1     0.00           __libc_start_main
  0.00      0.00     0.00        1     0.00           realloc
  0.00      0.00     0.00        1     0.00           strrchr


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

----- End forwarded message -----

Re: [carlos@baldric.uwo.ca: Good news for glibc.]

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:33:49 -0700, Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> said:

  Grant> glibc profiling?  This was originally posted on
  Grant> debian-hppa/parisc-linux mailing lists.

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&m\x107075994721581

Oh, yeah, I'm slightly biased... ;-)

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/

	--david

Re: [carlos@baldric.uwo.ca: Good news for glibc.]

[Carlos O'Donell]

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&m\x107075994721581
> 
> 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.

Re: [carlos@baldric.uwo.ca: Good news for glibc.]

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:31:54 -0500, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@baldric.uwo.ca> said:

  Carlos> Looks good, It was just my wish to get LD_PROFILE working,
  Carlos> what's easier than tacking on an environment variable to get
  Carlos> a quick look at the calls made by a particular DSO?

  Carlos> I'm 99.9% sure if upstream takes my patches this will fix
  Carlos> LD_PROFILE for ia64 aswell.

That would definitely be cool.  The more performance tools, the merrier.

	--david