It's pretty obvious how to visualize a regular call stack and count internal and external execution times. However, if one have dealt with coroutines, the call stack can look pretty messy. I mean, a coroutine may yield execution not to its parent but to another coroutine (eg. greenlet). Are there some common ways to make consistent profiling output for such scenarios?
Think about a single sample, of the stack for all threads at the same time.
What you need to know is - who's waiting for whom, and why.
Normally if function A is above B on a stack, it means A is waiting for B to return, and the reason is that A wanted B to do something.
If you look at a whole stack, for one thread, you get a chain of reasons why that particular nanosecond is being spent, by that thread.
If you're looking for speed, you're looking for chains of reasons that, altogether, you don't really need (because there is a weak link).
This works even if the chain ends in I/O.
If it is user input it's simply waiting for the user.
But if it's output, or disk I/O, or plain old CPU cranking, you might be able to do something to reduce it, and get a performance gain (if you see the same problem on 2 or more samples).
What if thread A is waiting for thread B?
Then what you see at the bottom of A's stack is a function that waits for the other thread.
You need to figure out which is thread B, and look at its stack, because the longer it takes, the longer A takes.
So this is more difficult, but surely you're not afraid of that.
I'm talking about manual profiling here, where you take samples yourself, in a debugger, and apply your full attention to each sample.
Profiling tools tend to assume you're lazy and only want numbers, and if nothing jumps out of those numbers you will be happy because you found nothing.
In fact, if some silly needless activity is taking 30% of time, then on average the number of samples you require to see it twice is 2/0.3 = 6.67 samples (not a big number), and it is quite likely that you will see it and the profiler will not.
That's random pausing.
Related
I'm writing a music player. I already have done a lot to improve the performance of my audio callback:
All decoding etc. is of course done in a separate thread. That will fill up some buffers.
To avoid any locking, I avoided any mutexes and coded all relevant structures just based on atomic operations. It's basically a lock-less FIFO.
I try to avoid page faults by using mlock on all the allocated memory.
I set my thread to realtime constraints via thread_policy_set (similar as here).
It sometimes still happens that I get underflows. I wonder how to debug that because I want to know what causing them.
I was thinking about maybe a way to trace the current execution of the audio callback if it took longer than 2ms or so. But how could I do that?
Also, maybe it still reads some memory which results in page faults. How can I debug those?
All the code in the callback is still somewhat complex. Maybe it's just too complicated. I could work around that by introducing another indirection and make the code really minimal by using just a simple ring buffer. That would introduce some more latency and I'm not sure if that is really the problem.
What I would try is, if I have a procedure that is supposed to complete in less than 2ms, I would set a 2ms alarm-clock interrupt when entering the procedure, and clear it when exiting the procedure.
Even if the overtime occurs rarely, this is sure to get it.
So when the interrupt occurs, I can catch it in the debugger and examine the stack.
Would this catch it in the act of doing what is taking extra time?
Maybe, maybe not, but doing it several times is bound to reveal something interesting.
The other thing I would do is simply look for speedups in the callback itself.
To do this, I would just randomly pause it manually a number of times while it's running, and each time examine the stack.
I would simply ignore any samples where the callback was not on the stack.
For the remaining samples, where the callback is on the stack, it will be at a random position in the state sequence of the callback, so chances are excellent that if there's anything it's doing whose optimization would save much time, I will see it doing it.
I am trying to use google perf tools CPU profiler for debugging performance issues on a multi-threaded program. With single thread it take 250 ms while 4 threads take around 900ms.
My program has a mmap'ed file which is shared across threads and all operations are read only. Also my program creates large number of objects which are not shared across threads. (Specifically my program uses CRF++ library to do some querying). I am trying to figure out how to make my program perform better with multi threads. Call graph produced by CPU profiler of gperf tools shows that my program spends a lot of time (around 50%) of time in _L_unlock_16.
Searching web for _L_unlock_16 pointed to some bug reports with canonical suggesting that its associated with libpthread. But other than that I was not able to find any useful information for debugging.
A brief description of what my program does. I have few words in a file (4). In my program I have a processWord() which processes a single word using CRF++. This processWord() is what each thread executes. My main() reads words from the file and each threads runs processWord() in parallel. If I process a single word(hence only 1 thread) it takes 250ms and so if I process all 4 words(and hence 4 threads) I expected it to finish by same time 250 ms, however as I mentioned above it's taking around 900ms.
This is the callgraph of the execution - https://www.dropbox.com/s/o1mkh477i7e9s4m/cgout_n2.png
I want to understand why my program is spending lot of time at _L_unlock_16 and what I can do to mitigate it.
Yet again the _L_unlock_16 is not a function of your code. Have you looked at the stracktraces above that function? What are the callers of it when the program waits? You've said that the program wastes 50% waiting inside. But, which part of the program ordered that operation? Is it again from memory alloc/dealloc ops?
The function seems to come from libpthread. Does CRF+ handle threads/libpthread in any way? If yes, then maybe the library is illconfigured? Or maybe it implements some 'basic threadsafety' by adding locks everywhere and simply is not built well for multithreading? What does the docs say about that?
Personally, I'd guess that it ignores threads and that you have added all the threading. I may be wrong, but if that's true, then the CRF++ probably will not call that 'unlock' function at all, and the 'unlock' is somwhow called from your code that orchestrates the threads/locks/queues/messages etc? Halt the program a few times and look at who called the unlock. If it really spends 50% sitting in the unlock, you will very quickly know who causes the lock to be used and you will be able to either eliminate it or at least perform a more refined research..
EDIT #1:
Eh.. when I said "stacktrace" I meant stacktrace, not callgraph. Callgraph may look nice in trivial cases, but in more complex ones, it will be mangled and unreadable and will hide the precious details into "compacted" form.. But, fortunatelly, here the case looks simple enough.
Please observe the beginning: "Process word, 99x". I assume that the "99x" is the call count. Then, look at "tagger-parse": 97x. From that:
61x into rebuildFeatures from which 41x goes right into unlock and 20(13) indirectly into it
23x goes to buildLattice fro which 21x goes into unlock
I'd guess that it was the CRF++ uses locking quite heavily. For me, it seems that you simply observe the effects of CRF's internal locking. It certainly is not lockless internally.
It seems to lock at least once per "processWord". It's hard to say without looking at code (is it opensource? I've not checked..), from stacktraces it would be more obvious, but IF it really locks once per "processWord" that it could even be a sort of a "global lock" that protects "everything" from "all threads" and causes all jobs to serialize. Whatever. Anyways, clearly, it's the CRF++'s internals that lock and wait.
If your CRF objects are really (really) not shared across threads, then remove threading configuration flags from CRF, pray that they were sane enough to not use any static variables nor global objects, add some own locking (if needed) at the topmost job/result level and retry. You should have it now much faster.
If the CRF objects are shared, unshare them and see above.
But, if they are shared behind the scenes, then there's little doable. Change your library to a one that has a better threading support, OR fix the library, OR ignore and use it with current performance.
The last advice may sound strange (it works slowly, right? so why to ignore it?), but in fact is the most important one, and you should try it first. If the parallel tasks have similar "data profile", then there is very probable that they will try to hit the same locks in the same approximate moment of time. Imagine a medium-sized cache that holds words sorted by its first letter. At the toplevel there's array of, say, 26 entries. Each entry has a lock and a list of words inside. If you run 100 threads that will each first check "mom" then "dad" then "son" - then all of that 100 threads will first hit and wait for each other at "M", then at "D" then at "S". Well, approximately/probably of course. But you get the idea. If the data profile were more random then they'd block each other far less. Mind that processing ONE word is a .. small task and that you try to process the same word(s). Even if the internal CRF's locking is smart, it is just bound to hit the same areas. Try again with a more dispersed data.
Add to that the fact that threading costs. If something was guarded against races with use of locks, then every lock/unlock costs because at least they have to "halt and check if the lock is open" (sorry very imprecise wording). If the data-to-process is small in relation to the-amount-of-lockchecks, then adding more threads will not help and will just waste the time. For checking one word, it may even happen that the sole handling of a single lock takes longer than processing the word! But, if the amount of data to be processed were larger, then the cost of flipping a lock compared to processing the data might start being neglible.
Prepare a set of 100 or more words. Run and measure it on one thread. Then partition the words at random and run it on 2 and 4 threads. And measure. If not better, try at 1000 and 10000 words. The more the better, of course, keeping in mind that the test should not last till your next birthday ;)
If you notice that 10k words split over 4 threads (2500w per th) works about 40%-30%-or even 25% faster than on one thread - here you go! You simply gave it a too small job. It was tailored and optimized for bigger ones!
But, on the other hand, it may happen that 10k words split over 4 threads does not work faster, or worse, works slower - then it might indicate that the library handles multithreading very wrong. Now try the other things like stripping threading from it or repairing it.
I have a C++ program running on Linux in which a new thread is created to do some computationally expensive work independent of the main thread (The computational work completes by writing the results to files, which end up being very large). However, I'm getting relatively poor performance.
If I implement the program straightforward (without introducing other threads), it completes the task in roughly 2 hours. With the multi-threaded program it takes around 12 hours to do the same task (this was tested with only one thread spawned).
I've tried a couple of things, including pthread_setaffinity_np to set the thread to a single CPU (out of the 24 available on the server I'm using), as well as pthread_setschedparam to set the scheduling policy (I've only tried SCHED_BATCH). But the effects of these have so far been negligible.
Are there any general causes for this kind of problem?
EDIT: I've added some example code that I'm using, which is hopefully the most relevant parts. The function process_job() is what actually does the computational work, but it would be too much to include here. Basically, it reads in two files of data, and uses these to perform queries on an in-memory graph database, in which the results are written to two large files over a period of hours.
EDIT part 2: Just to clarify, the problem is not that I want to use threads to increase the performance of an algorithm I have. But rather, I want to run many instances of my algorithm simultaneously. Therefore, I expect the algorithm would run at a similar speed when put in a thread as it would if I didn't use multi-threads at all.
EDIT part 3: Thanks for the suggestions all. I'm currently doing some unit tests (seeing which parts are slowing down) as some have suggested. As the program takes a while to load and execute, it is taking time to see any results from the tests and therefore I apologize for late responses. I think the main point I wanted to clarify is possible reasons why threading could cause a program to run slowly. From what I gather from the comments, it simply shouldn't be. I'll post when I can find a reasonable resolution, thanks again.
(FINAL) EDIT part 4: It turns out that the problem was not related to threading after all. Describing it would be too cumbersome at this point (including the use of compiler optimization levels), but the ideas posted here were very useful and appreciated.
struct sched_param sched_param = {
sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_BATCH)
};
int set_thread_to_core(const long tid, const int &core_id) {
cpu_set_t mask;
CPU_ZERO(&mask);
CPU_SET(core_id, &mask);
return pthread_setaffinity_np(tid, sizeof(mask), &mask);
}
void *worker_thread(void *arg) {
job_data *temp = (job_data *)arg; // get the information for the task passed in
...
long tid = pthread_self();
int set_thread = set_thread_to_core(tid, slot_id); // assume slot_id is 1 (it is in the test case I run)
sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_BATCH);
pthread_setschedparam(tid, SCHED_BATCH, &sched_param);
int success = process_job(...); // this is where all the work actually happens
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
...
pthread_t temp;
pthread_create(&temp, NULL, worker_thread, (void *) &jobs[i]); // jobs is a vector of a class type containing information for the task
...
return 0;
}
If you have plenty of CPU cores, and have plenty of work to do, it should not take longer to run in multithreaded than single threaded mode - the actual CPU time may be a fraction longer, but the "wall-clock time" should be shorter. I'm pretty sure that your code has some sort of bottleneck where one thread is blocking the other.
This is because of one or more of these things - I'll list them first, then go into detail below:
Some lock in a thread is blocking the second thread from running.
Sharing of data between threads (either true or "false" sharing)
Cache thrashing.
Competition for some external resource causing thrashing and/or blocking.
Badly designed code in general...
Some lock in a thread is blocking the second thread from running.
If there is a thread that takes a lock, and another thread wants to use the resource that is locked by this thread, it will have to wait. This obviously means the thread isn't doing anything useful. Locks should be kept to a minimum by only taking the lock for a short period. Using some code to identify if locks are holding your code, such as:
while (!tryLock(some_some_lock))
{
tried_locking_failed[lock_id][thread_id]++;
}
total_locks[some_lock]++;
Printing some stats of the locks would help to identify where the locking is contentious - or you can try the old trick of "Press break in the debugger and see where you are" - if a thread is constantly waiting for some lock, then that's what's preventing progress...
Sharing of data between threads (either true or "false" sharing)
If two threads use [and update the value of it frequently] the same variable, then the two threads will have to swap "I've updated this" messages, and the CPU's have to fetch the data from the other CPU before it can continue with it's use of the variable. Since "data" is shared on a "per cache-line" level, and a cache-line is typically 32-bytes, something like:
int var[NUM_THREADS];
...
var[thread_id]++;
would classify as something called "false sharing" - the ACTUAL data updated is unique per CPU, but since the data is within the same 32-byte region, the cores will still have updated the same are of memory.
Cache thrashing.
If two threads do a lot of memory reading and writing, the cache of the CPU may be constantly throwing away good data to fill it with data for the other thread. There are some techniques available to ensure that two threads don't run in "lockstep" on which part of cache the CPU uses. If the data is 2^n (power of two) and fairly large (a multiple of the cache-size), it's a good idea to "add an offset" for each thread - for example 1KB or 2KB. That way, when the second thread reads the same distance into the data region, it will not overwrite exactly the same area of cache that the first thread is currently using.
Competition for some external resource causing thrashing and/or blocking.
If two threads are reading or writing from/to the hard-disk, network card, or some other shared resource, this can lead to one thread blocking another thread, which in turn means lower performance. It is also possible that the code detects different threads and does some extra flushing to ensure that data is written in the correct order or similar, before starting work with the other thread.
It is also possible that there are locks internally in the code that deals with the resource (user-mode library or kernel mode drivers) that block when more than one thread is using the same resource.
Generally bad design
This is a "catchall" for "lots of other things that can be wrong". If the result from one calculation in one thread is needed to progress the other, obviously, not a lot of work can be done in that thread.
Too small a work-unit, so all the time is spent starting and stopping the thread, and not enough work is being done. Say for example that you dole out small numbers to be "calculate if this is a prime" to each thread, one number at a time, it will probably take a lot longer to give the number to the thread than the calculation of "is this actually a prime-number" - the solution is to give a set of numbers (perhaps 10, 20, 32, 64 or such) to each thread, and then report back the result for the whole lot in one go.
There are plenty of other "bad design". Without understanding your code it's quite hard to say for sure.
It is entirely possible that your problem is none of the ones I've mentioned here, but most likely it is one of these. Hopefully this asnwer is helpful to identify the cause.
Read CPU Caches and Why You Care to understand why a naive port of an algorithm from one thread to multiple threads will more often than not result in greatly reduced performance and negative scalability. Algorithms that are specififcally designed for parallelism take care of overactive interlocked operations, false sharing and other causes of cache pollution.
Here are a few things you might wanna look into.
1°) Do you enter any critical section (locks, semaphores, etc.) between your worker thread and your main thread? (this should be the case if your queries modify the graph). If so, that could be one of the sources of the multithreading overhead : threads competing for a lock usually degrades performances.
2°) You're using a 24 cores machines, which I assume would be NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access). Since you set the threads affinities during your tests, you should pay close attention to the memory topology of your hardware. Looking at the files in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/ can help you with that (beware that cpu0 and cpu1 aren't necessarily close together, and thus does not necessarily share memory). Threads heavily using memory should use local memory (allocated in the same NUMA node as the core they're executing on).
3°) You are heavily using disk I/O. Which kind of I/O is that? if every thread perform every time some synchronous I/O, you might wanna consider asynchronous system calls, so that the OS stays in charge of scheduling those requests to the disk.
4°) Some caches issues have already been mentionned in other answers. From experience, false sharing can hurt performances as much as you're observing. My last recommendation (which should have been my first) is to use a profiler tool, such as Linux Perf, or OProfile. With such performance degradation you're experiencing, the cause will certainly appear quite clearly.
The other answers have all addressed the general guidelines that can cause your symptoms. I will give my own, hopefully not excessively redundant version. Then I will talk a bit about how you can get to the bottom of the problem with everything discussed in mind.
In general, there's a few reasons you'd expect multiple threads to perform better:
A piece of work is dependent on some resources (disk, memory, cache, etc.) while other pieces can proceed independently of these resources or said workload.
You have multiple CPU cores that can process your workload in parallel.
The main reasons, enumerated above, you'd expect multiple threads to perform less well are all based on resource contention:
Disk contention: already explained in detail and can be a possible issue, especially if you are writing small buffers at a time instead of batching
CPU time contention if the threads are scheduled onto the same core: probably not your issue if you're setting affinity. However, you should still double check
Cache thrashing: similarly probably not your problem if you have affinity, though this can be very expensive if it is your problem.
Shared memory: again talked about in detail and doesn't seem to be your issue, but it wouldn't hurt to audit the code to check it out.
NUMA: again talked about. If your worker thread is pinned to a different core, you will want to check whether the work it needs to access is local to the main core.
Ok so far not much new. It can be any or none of the above. The question is, for your case, how can you detect where the extra time is coming from. There's a few strategies:
Audit the code and look for obvious areas. Don't spend too much time doing this as it's generally unfruitful if you wrote the program to begin with.
Refactor the single threaded code and the multi-threaded code to isolate one process() function, then profile at key checkpoints to try to account for the difference. Then narrow it down.
Refactor the resource access into batches, then profile each batch on both the control and the experiment to account for the difference. Not only will this tell you which areas (disk access vs memory access vs spending time in some tight loop) you need to focus your efforts on, doing this refactor might even improve your running time overall. Example:
First copy the graph structure to thread-local memory (perform a straight-up copy in the single-threaded case)
Then perform the query
Then setup an asynchronous write to disk
Try to find a minimally reproducible workload with the same symptoms. This means changing your algorithm to do a subset of what it already does.
Make sure there's no other noise in the system that could've caused the difference (if some other user is running a similar system on the work core).
My own intuition for your case:
Your graph structure is not NUMA friendly for your worker core.
The kernel can actually scheduled your worker thread off the affinity core. This can happen if you don't have isolcpu on for the core you're pinning to.
I can't tell you what's wrong with your program because you haven't shared enough of it to do a detailed analysis.
What I can tell you is if this was my problem the first thing I would try is to run two profiler sessions on my application, one on the single threaded version and another on the dual thread configuration. The profiler report should give you a pretty good idea of where the extra time is going. Note that you may not need to profile the entire application run, depending on the problem the time difference may become obvious after you profile for a few seconds or minutes.
As far as profiler choices for Linux you may want to consider oprofile or as a second choice gprof.
If you find you need help interpreting the profiler output feel free to add that to your question.
It can be a right pain in the rear to track down why threads aren't working as planned. One can do so analytically, or one can use tool to show what's going on. I've had very good mileage out of ftrace, Linux's clone of Solaris's dtrace (which in turn is based on what VxWorks, Greenhill's Integrity OS and Mercury Computer Systems Inc have been doing for a looong time.)
In particular I found this page very useful: http://www.omappedia.com/wiki/Installing_and_Using_Ftrace, particularly this and this section. Don't worry about it being an OMAP orientated website; I've used it on X86 Linuxes just fine (though you may have to build a kernel to include it). Also remember that the GTKWave viewer is primarily intended for looking at log traces from VHDL developments, which is why it looks 'odd'. It's just that someone realised that it would be a usable viewer for sched_switch data too, and that saved them writing one.
Using the sched_switch tracer you can see when (but not necessarily why) your threads are running, and that might be enough to give you a clue. The 'why' can be revealed by careful examination of some of the other tracers.
If you are getting slowdown from using 1 thread, it is likely due to overhead from using thread safe library functions, or from thread setup. Creating a thread for each job will cause significant overhead, but probably not as much as you refer to.
In other words, it is probably some overhead from some thread safe library function.
The best thing to do, is to profile your code to find out where time is spent. If it is in a library call, try to find a replacement library or implement it yourself. If the bottleneck is thread creation/destruction try reusing threads, for instance using OpenMP tasks or std::async in C++11.
Some libraries are really nasty wrt thread safe overhead. For instance, many rand() implementations use a global lock, rather than using thread local prgn's. Such locking overhead is much larger than generating a number, and is hard to track without a profiler.
The slowdown could also stem from small changes you have made, for instance declaring variables volatile, which generally should not be necessary.
I suspect you're running on a machine with one single-core processor. This problem is not parallelizable on that kind of system. Your code is constantly using the processor, which has a fixed number of cycles to offer to it. It actually runs more slowly because the additional thread adds expensive context switching to the problem.
The only kinds of problems that parallelize well on a single-processor machine are those that allow one path of execution to run while another is blocked waiting for I/O, and situations (such as keeping a responsive GUI) where allowing one thread to get some processor time is more important than executing your code as quickly as possible.
If you only want to run many independent instances of your algorithm can you just submit multiple jobs (with different parameters, can be handled by a single script) to your cluster? That would eliminate the need to profile and debug your multithreaded program. I don't have much experience with multithreaded programming but if you use MPI or OpenMP then you'd have to write less code for the book keeping too. For example, if some common initialization routine is needed and the processes can run independently thereafter you can just do that by initializing in one thread and doing a broadcast. No need for maintaining locks and such.
I need to implement execution time measuring functionality. I thought about two possibilities.
First - regular time() call, just remember time each execution step starts and time when each execution step completes. Unix time shell command works this way.
Second method is sampling. Every execution step set some sort of flag before execution begins(for example - creates some object in the stack frame), and destroy it when it's completes. Timer periodically scan all flags and generate execution time profile. If some execution step takes more time then the others - it will be scanned more times. Many profilers works like this.
I need to add some profiling functionality in my server application, what method is better and why? I think that second method is less accurate and first method add dependency to profiling library code.
The second method is essentially stack sampling.
You can try to do it yourself, by means of some kind of entry-exit event capture, or it's better if there is a utility to actually read the stack.
The latter has an advantage in that you get line-of-code resolution, rather than just method-level.
There's something that a lot of people don't get about this, which is that precision of timing measurement is far less important than precision of problem identification.
It is important to take samples even during I/O or other blocking, so you are not blind to needless I/O. If you are worried that competition with other processes could inflate the time, don't be, because what really matters is not absolute time measurements, but percentages.
For example, if one line of code is on the stack 50% of the wall-clock time, and thus responsible for that much, getting rid of it would double the speed of the app, regardless of whatever else is going on.
Profiling is about more than just getting samples.
Often people are pretty casual about what they do with them, but that's where the money is.
First, inclusive time is the fraction of time a method or line of code is on the stack. Forget "self" time - it's included in inclusive time.
Forget invocation counting - its relation to inclusive percent is, at best, very indirect.
If you are summarizing, the best way to do it is to have a "butterfly view" whose focus is on a single line of code.
To its left and right are the lines of code appearing immediately above it and below it on the stack samples.
Next to each line of code is a percent - the percent of stack samples containing that line of code.
(And don't worry about recursion. It's simply not an issue.)
Even better than any kind of summary is to just let the user see a small random selection of the stack samples themselves.
That way, the user can get the whole picture of why each snapshot in time was being spent.
Any avoidable activity appearing on more than one sample is a chance for some serious speedup, guaranteed.
People often think "Well, that could just be a fluke, not a real bottleneck".
Not so. Fixing it will pay off, maybe a little, maybe a lot, but on average - significant.
People should not be ruled by risk-aversion.
More on all that.
When boost is an option, you can use the timer library.
Make sure that you really know what you're looking for in the profiler you're writing, whenever you're collecting the total execution time of a certain piece of code, it will include time spent in all its children and it may be hard to really find what is the bottleneck in your system as the most top-level function will always bubble up as the most expensive one - like for instance main().
What I would suggest is to hook into every function's prologue and epilogue (if your application is a CLR application, you can use the ICorProfilerInfo::SetEnterLeaveFunctionHooks to do that, you can also use macros at the beginning of every method, or any other mechanism that would inject your code at the beginning and and of every function) and collect your times in a form of a tree for each thread that your profiling.
The algorithm for this would look somehow similar to this:
For each thread that you're monitoring create a stack-like data structure.
Whenever you're notified about a function that began execution, push something that would identify the function into that stack.
If that function is not the only function on the stack, then you know that the previous function that did not return yet was the one that called your function.
Keep track of those callee-called relationships in your favorite data structure.
Whenever a method returns, it's identifier will always be on top of its thread stack. It's total execution time is equal to (time when the last (it's) identifier was pushed on the stack - current time). Pop that identifier of the stack.
This way you'll have a tree-like breakdown of what eats up your execution time where you can see what child calls account for the total execution time of a function.
Have fun!
In my profiler I used an extended version of the 1-st approach mentioned by you.
I have a class which provides context objects. You can define them in your work code as automatic objects to be freed up as soon as execution flow leaves the context where they have been defined (for example, a function or a loop). The constructor calls GetTickCount (it was a Windows project, you can choose analogous function as appropriate to your target platform) and stores this value, while destructor calls GetTickCount again and calculates difference between this moment and start. Each object has unique context ID (can be autogenerated as a static object inside the same context), so profiler can sum up all timings with the same IDs, which means that the same context has been passed several times. Also number of executions is counted.
Here is a macro for preprocessor, which helps to profile a function:
#define _PROFILEFUNC_ static ProfilerLocator locator(__FUNC__); ProfilerObject obj(locator);
When I want to profile a function I just insert PROFILEFUNC at the beginning of the function. This generates a static object locator which identifies the context and stores a name of it as the function name (you may decide to choose another naming). Then automatic ProfilerObject is created on stack and "traces" own creation and deletion, reporting this to the profiler.
I have a program I want to profile with gprof. The problem (seemingly) is that it uses sockets. So I get things like this:
::select(): Interrupted system call
I hit this problem a while back, gave up, and moved on. But I would really like to be able to profile my code, using gprof if possible. What can I do? Is there a gprof option I'm missing? A socket option? Is gprof totally useless in the presence of these types of system calls? If so, is there a viable alternative?
EDIT: Platform:
Linux 2.6 (x64)
GCC 4.4.1
gprof 2.19
The socket code needs to handle interrupted system calls regardless of profiler, but under profiler it's unavoidable. This means having code like.
if ( errno == EINTR ) { ...
after each system call.
Take a look, for example, here for the background.
gprof (here's the paper) is reliable, but it only was ever intended to measure changes, and even for that, it only measures CPU-bound issues. It was never advertised to be useful for locating problems. That is an idea that other people layered on top of it.
Consider this method.
Another good option, if you don't mind spending some money, is Zoom.
Added: If I can just give you an example. Suppose you have a call-hierarchy where Main calls A some number of times, A calls B some number of times, B calls C some number of times, and C waits for some I/O with a socket or file, and that's basically all the program does. Now, further suppose that the number of times each routine calls the next one down is 25% more times than it really needs to. Since 1.25^3 is about 2, that means the entire program takes twice as long to run as it really needs to.
In the first place, since all the time is spent waiting for I/O gprof will tell you nothing about how that time is spent, because it only looks at "running" time.
Second, suppose (just for argument) it did count the I/O time. It could give you a call graph, basically saying that each routine takes 100% of the time. What does that tell you? Nothing more than you already know.
However, if you take a small number of stack samples, you will see on every one of them the lines of code where each routine calls the next.
In other words, it's not just giving you a rough percentage time estimate, it is pointing you at specific lines of code that are costly.
You can look at each line of code and ask if there is a way to do it fewer times. Assuming you do this, you will get the factor of 2 speedup.
People get big factors this way. In my experience, the number of call levels can easily be 30 or more. Every call seems necessary, until you ask if it can be avoided. Even small numbers of avoidable calls can have a huge effect over that many layers.