search for: cachegrind

Hello everybody, I am looking for a tool (in Linux or Windows) that allow me to get performance measures like cycle execution, cache accesses, etc. for an x86 architecture. I want to estimate the performance overhead due to the modification that I do using LLVM. Any suggestion is welcome. Thanks in advance, -- Juan Carlos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

You mean 'cachegrind'? http://valgrind.org/info/tools.html#cachegrind I don't know any public tool better than this (but someone please tell me if I am misinformed). - Daniel On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Juan Carlos Martinez Santos<juanc.martinez.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everybody,...

...3% | +277% | LLVM | -3%(!) | +330% | (These measurements are the median values of 10 runs.) So the obvious question is: can anybody explain how it is possible that using the stack protector causes the program to run 3% faster on my desktop? I have tried profiling the program using valgrind (cachegrind & callgrind) but the results show absolutely no reason at all for these measurements. I have attached an archive with the source code and compiled binaries. Here are the specs of the two systems: * Desktop - Ubuntu 11.10 - Linux 3.0.0-16-generic-pae - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.2...

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] A simulation tool Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:23:34 -0500 Size: 2903 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090901/c1e167ca/attachment.eml>

...ve. > (http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/about/) > > It uses hardware performance counters to collect profiling information > and therefore has very low overhead, whereas Valgrind performs dynamic > binary instrumentation and can be significantly slow (20-50x slower). > In addition, Cachegrind 'simulates' cache behavior through it's own > cache model, whereas Oprofile (or other counter based profilers) > report real cache events. > > Depending on what your needs are (ease of use, runtime overhead, etc) > you could pick either. I am curious, how do you think AM...

Hello, I have some code that encodes PCM data into a vorbis stream, using the workflow shown in http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/libvorbis/overview.html. By analyzing that process with valgrind/cachegrind I found out that 95% of the time used for encoding is spent in the function "vorbis_analysis(&vb, 0)". My question now is: would it be technically possible to parallelize this? I think about using multiple worker threads for the vorbis_analysis calls, especiall on multi core systems...

Ketan Pundlik Umare wrote: > Hi Guys, > I am an absolute newbie to the compiler community. I am experimenting a little bit with llvm. > I have a few small questions, i would be really great if someone could help me. It sounds like what you want is valgrind --tool=cachegrind (or --tool=callgrind). See http://valgrind.org/ > 1. Can i find out (is there something already built), if the previous instruction / or some instruction was a cache miss. Basically i want to detect cache misses and instructions that are causing this > > 2. Can i find if there was a bra...

...330% | > > (These measurements are the median values of 10 runs.) > > So the obvious question is: can anybody explain how it is possible that using > the stack protector causes the program to run 3% faster on my desktop? > > I have tried profiling the program using valgrind (cachegrind & callgrind) but > the results show absolutely no reason at all for these measurements. > > I have attached an archive with the source code and compiled binaries. > > Here are the specs of the two systems: > * Desktop > - Ubuntu 11.10 > - Linux 3.0.0-16-generic-pae &gt...

Hi Guys, I am an absolute newbie to the compiler community. I am experimenting a little bit with llvm. I have a few small questions, i would be really great if someone could help me. 1. Can i find out (is there something already built), if the previous instruction / or some instruction was a cache miss. Basically i want to detect cache misses and instructions that are causing this 2. Can i find

...for LLVM 2.7 retained) - ttasim: call info (setting profile_transfer_tracking) and the instruction profile (ttasim setting profile_data_saving) are now saved to separate pure text files to speed up simulation when these traces are enabled. - ttasim: instruction profile can be converted to cachegrind-compatible traces which can be visualized with kcachegrind. - SystemC integration: Possibility to add TTA simulation models to system level simulations with the ability to override the operation pipeline simulation models for the function units. - Improved the scheduling for unconnected ma...

Hi, Suddenly occurred to me that I wasn't seeing the performance I used to while running 3.0.21c. Went back and tested 3.0.14a on the exact same configuration and boom, smaller writes (8K) were about twice as fast. I narrowed it down to a change between 14a and 20 but there were alot of changes in there. Can anyone think of what this could be? Thanks, Greg -- Greg Dickie just a guy

Hi, only one letter got to valgrind-developers mailing list. I'll quote the first message of the thread so that those who do not read llvmdev knew what's this discusssion about. === Begin of the first message === > Hi, > > I've seen on the LLVM's Open Projet Page [1] an idea about using LLVM to > generate native code in Valgrind. For what I know, Valgrind uses libVEX

On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 18:46 +0100, Lexington Luthor wrote: > I have resolved my problem already - basically I had "-s" in my > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS environment which configure put in the Makefiles and > screwed up the build. You mean the Makefile system honored your request to use non-standard CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. The build went fine. It just didn't produce what you were

Reid Spencer wrote: > It looks to me like your libLLVMSupport.a didn't get built or you didn't > update all of LLVM. Please make sure you update from the root of the > tree with the command: > > cvs update -ARPd > > Reid. > Thanks for the quick response. I have resolved my problem already - basically I had "-s" in my CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS environment which

Hi, The size of the string generated by VSEncoder is 12592387, while that by InterpolativeEncoder is 8554817. When only encoding the first 1000lines, both cost 0ms to decode and VS cost 1ms to encode while Interpolative cost 0ms, 1000lines is just too little to catch the difference in my test. I upload the source code to https://github.com/HurricaneTong/Xapian/tree/master/VSEncoder The