Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 10:54:11 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, roberto@blaise.ibp.fr Subject: Re: Optimizing CVS? Message-ID: <9502021754.AA13753@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199502020547.QAA02136@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Feb 2, 95 04:47:16 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> granularity: each sample hit covers 4 byte(s) for 0.00% of 208.85 seconds > > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls us/call us/call name > 41.5 86.635 86.635 _cputime (842) > 17.6 123.321 36.686 _mcount (1514) > 10.1 144.476 21.155 _mexitcount (1516) ... Can you generate a heirarchy encapsulation profile? The totals on this one add to 100%. We can't see *where* the _cputime is being consumed. It is more informative in a lot of cases to generate count against the call tree, ie: a calls b calls c 610 a 530 b 26 c Where the actual time spent on code in a is 610-530 or 80. I suspect that even though a small amount of time shows in copyout, that the page mapping and checking there is largely to blame for the time cost (incorrectly) accounted to other routines. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502021754.AA13753>