search for: callgrind

Hi, For the last day or two I having been trying to get Valgrind/Callgrind 3.6.1 to work on Centos Linux 5.5 using a simple Fibonacci C++ program(shown below). After compiling the program using g++ -g -o MatchUpAccurate MatchUpAccurate.cpp, we run: /home/frankc/DQTTest/valgrind-3.6.1/coregrind/valgrind --tool=callgrind --dump-instr=yes --simulate-cache=yes --collect-jump...

Good afternoon, We are running callgrind and cg_annotate version 3.6.1 on Centos Linux Version 5.5 x86_32. One month ago Mr. Josef Weidenorfer issued a special patch that fixed callgrind on Centos Linux Version 5.5 x86_32. We can now profile complex C++ programs which use our own shared library libmdMatchup.so. However, when we use ve...

...obtain the following output: glibc-2.5.49.el5_57 glibc-devel-2.5.49.el5-5.7. I think we are using a different architecture compared to your x86_64 architecture. Also , we using a different version of glibc and glibc-devel than the versions listed in your reply. Please tell us whether our Callgrind errors are caused by a libc mismatch and if there is a workaround to this lib mismatch. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110424/c8819583/attachment-0005.html>

Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > The report you show seems to be just the time take by each function > directly rather than including functions it calls. It looks like a lot > of the time is spent in cursor movement, as totalling up things that > seem like they'd be due to that I quickly get to 40+% but it's hard > to tell if that's about the actual total

...LVM | -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 @ 2.20GHz (2048K cach...

Dear all, I posted this problem sometime back on 0.9.26 (http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-users/2006-December/024086.html). I thought the problem was fixed, but it seemed not. >From 0.9.26 all the way to the latest 0.9.30, I've been seeing this problem on my system (Linux flying 2.6.17-11-generic #2 SMP Thu Feb 1 19:52:28 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux; Ubuntu Edgy installed, but running

.../data/scratch/text/tmp06.db /mnt/data/scratch/text/06.db Ah, thanks, I managed to get that part working and generated a prof.out file, at least > google-pprof /usr/bin/xapian-compact $HOME/prof.out > > At the prompt inside, "gv" renders a callgraph in postscript and > "callgrind" generates a file like that from valgrind's callgrind tool > which you can inspect with kcachegrind, etc. Unfortunately, google-pprof can't seem to figure out symbols like perf can. I had the same problem with the Debian-provided -dbgsym packages for 1.4.11-1 as I am having with x...

...: LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libprofiler.so CPUPROFILE=$HOME/prof.out /usr/bin/xapian-compact /mnt/data/scratch/text/tmp06.db /mnt/data/scratch/text/06.db google-pprof /usr/bin/xapian-compact $HOME/prof.out At the prompt inside, "gv" renders a callgraph in postscript and "callgrind" generates a file like that from valgrind's callgrind tool which you can inspect with kcachegrind, etc. Cheers, Olly

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 branch misprediction? &gt...

...SDNode constructor. One other interesting aspect of it is that if you make the struct_2 type a smaller matrix, like: %struct_2 = type { [65534 x %struct_1] } Then you don't get a crash, instead it takes about 20+ minutes to process and you get a lot of movb instructions out - like 200k or so. Callgrind says that 33% of the time consumed is directly in llvm::SUnit::ComputeHeight(). Clearly something has gone badly non-linear for this case. I looked at what clang is doing for a similar construct and I see it generates a memcpy intrinsic instead of the direct load/store. I'm now doing that in m...

...(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) Cor...

...oding seem to be realistic as target operating modes. I've run some tests with speexenc, encoding a 1minute 16bit PCM 8khz speech file, which took 3m53s to encode at 11kbps CBR/complexity 3. For finding a starting point for the assembler port I did some analysis of the encoding with valgrind-callgrind. Perhaps some of you have already done similar work and could share a bit of their experience? To loose some words about myself, I'm a student of information technologies/rf electronics and generally interested in everything that has to do with embedded system running Linux, though I'm n...

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

...ary translator (or other users of the JIT which invoke it many times on small pieces of code) is the constant time of the JIT which is required for every source ISA BB (each BB gets mapped to an LLVM Function). [1] cites a constant overhead of 10 ms per BB. I just did some simple measurements with callgrind doing an lli on a simple .ll file which only contains a main function which immediately returns. With -regalloc=fast and -fast-isel and an -O2 compiled lli we spend about 725000 instructions in getPointerToFunction(). Clearly, that's quite some constant overhead and I doubt that we can get it d...

Can anyone comment on how they are approaching profiling of jitted code in their llvm backends? For linux and windows, I'm wondering which tools are best integrated with (be it gprof or callgrind on linux, or vtune on either platform). Thanks b.

Hi everyone, recently I've been fiddling with callgrind to profile the performance of clang and other llvm tools. Turns out that a lot of CPU time is spent on startup in _dl_lookup_symbol_x which is invoked a few thousands times to resolve all the weak object symbols which comes from LLVM code. Most of the symbols are virtual table definitions. Most pr...

...target operating > modes. I've run some tests with speexenc, encoding a 1minute 16bit PCM > 8khz speech > file, which took 3m53s to encode at 11kbps CBR/complexity 3. > For finding a starting point for the assembler port I did some analysis of > the encoding with > valgrind-callgrind. Perhaps some of you have already done similar work and > could share > a bit of their experience? > To loose some words about myself, I'm a student of information > technologies/rf electronics > and generally interested in everything that has to do with embedded system > r...

Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> writes: >> To me, increasing coverage of the FastISel seemed more involved than >> directly emitting opcodes to memory, with a lesser outlook on >> reducing overhead. > > That seems extremely unlikely. You'd be effectively re-implementing > both fast-isel and the MC binary emitter layers, and it sounds like a > new

Alexander Chemeris wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/27/08, Thorvald Natvig <thorvald at natvig.com> wrote: > >> And here's a patch for Intel Math Kernel Library. This allows commercial >> users of Speex to use a high-speed FFT library that isn't GPL'd. (You do >> need to pay for it though). This is 3 times faster than the default FFT in >> speex, and

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5324 Summary: with option --xattrs the process rsync is more long time Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: fauthier@free.fr