From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Feb  2 10:00:15 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id KAA11171 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:00:15 -0800
Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA11165; Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:00:13 -0800
Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1)
	id AA13753; Thu, 2 Feb 95 10:54:12 MST
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Message-Id: <9502021754.AA13753@cs.weber.edu>
Subject: Re: Optimizing CVS?
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 10:54:11 MST
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com,
        roberto@blaise.ibp.fr
In-Reply-To: <199502020547.QAA02136@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Feb 2, 95 04:47:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52]
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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.