[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Ruud van der Pas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ruud.vanderpas at oracle dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Ruud van der Pas changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P3 Assignee|ruud.vanderpas at oracle dot com |vladimir.mezentsev at oracle dot c ||om --- Comment #4 from Ruud van der Pas --- I think there are several issues brought up in this RFE. It will be cleaner and easier to submit patches for, if we split this RFE into several others. This is why I have created two RFEs for "display html" and cross referenced them: 30942 and 30943. We can then keep this one for the "display text" related performance issues mentioned. I have also changed this RFE from P2 to P3, and re-assigned it to Vladimir, since he is the lead maintainer for "display text". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Ruud van der Pas changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=30943 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Ruud van der Pas changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=30942 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Kurt Goebel changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|vladimir.mezentsev at oracle dot c |ruud.vanderpas at oracle dot com |om | CC||kurt.goebel at oracle dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Kurt Goebel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Mezentsev --- Hi Ruud, See the end of emil. He suggests to remove the disassembly by default in gp-display-html On 9/26/23 11:09, bugmenot at mailinator dot com wrote: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 > > --- Comment #2 from John Doe --- > (In reply to Vladimir Mezentsev from comment #1) >> Did you try >> gprofng display text -func /tmp/binutils-2.41/build/test.2.er >> >> Is this also slow? > Sorry I didn't include that information - yes, I've tried that, and no, it's > not slow, it works instantly. > >> May we get your sample program to recreate the experiment on our machines ? > Unfortunately those "bigger" tests were done in a proprietary environment > where > "perf record" is normally used instead, so I can't share that. > Also, I _guess_ that the big disassembly (>400MB) _might_ come from the Oracle > client, which doesn't distribute debug information. > >>> Also running >>> "gprofng display text -metrics name:soname:e.%totalcpu -disasm func1" >>> (this function showed 5% usage in the "-functions" flavor) took 6 minutes >>> (that's a huge, generated function). >> The command is incorrect. It should be: >> gprofng display text -name short:soname -metrics e.%totalcpu:name -disasm >> func1 > You're right about the format, but that doesn't make any difference to the > time > it takes to use it. > > Note that when I use the "-source" option instead, I get the result within a > few seconds. > > This seems to be another reason not to include the disassembly in "display > html" by default, but only on request. Perhaps "filtered" only for some > functions? > -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 --- Comment #2 from John Doe --- (In reply to Vladimir Mezentsev from comment #1) > Did you try > gprofng display text -func /tmp/binutils-2.41/build/test.2.er > > Is this also slow? Sorry I didn't include that information - yes, I've tried that, and no, it's not slow, it works instantly. > May we get your sample program to recreate the experiment on our machines ? Unfortunately those "bigger" tests were done in a proprietary environment where "perf record" is normally used instead, so I can't share that. Also, I _guess_ that the big disassembly (>400MB) _might_ come from the Oracle client, which doesn't distribute debug information. > > Also running > > "gprofng display text -metrics name:soname:e.%totalcpu -disasm func1" > > (this function showed 5% usage in the "-functions" flavor) took 6 minutes > > (that's a huge, generated function). > > The command is incorrect. It should be: > gprofng display text -name short:soname -metrics e.%totalcpu:name -disasm > func1 You're right about the format, but that doesn't make any difference to the time it takes to use it. Note that when I use the "-source" option instead, I get the result within a few seconds. This seems to be another reason not to include the disassembly in "display html" by default, but only on request. Perhaps "filtered" only for some functions? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/30898] consider multi-threading for gprofng display text
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30898 Vladimir Mezentsev changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2023-09-26 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Vladimir Mezentsev --- Did you try gprofng display text -func /tmp/binutils-2.41/build/test.2.er Is this also slow? May we get your sample program to recreate the experiment on our machines ? > Also running > "gprofng display text -metrics name:soname:e.%totalcpu -disasm func1" > (this function showed 5% usage in the "-functions" flavor) took 6 minutes > (that's a huge, generated function). The command is incorrect. It should be: gprofng display text -name short:soname -metrics e.%totalcpu:name -disasm func1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
