Re: [Bug: 21.5-b28] performance on aix, cpu hog, tprof, --without-error-checking --without-kkcc

With xemacs configured without error-checking, I still have 30% + cpu usage, but interactive usage is significantly better. Total % For All Processes (/usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28) = 27,48 Subroutine % Source ========== ====== ====== .add_ichar_rune_1 1,47 redisplay.c .extent_list_locate 1,22 extents.c .re_match_2_internal 1,21 regex.c .assq_no_quit 1,02 fns.c .execute_optimized_program 0,89 bytecode.c .create_text_block 0,76 redisplay.c .display_table_entry 0,75 glyphs.c .kkcc_marking 0,73 gc.c .BYTE_BUF_BYTE_ADDRESS_NO_VERIFY 0,53 inline.c .compare_runes 0,53 redisplay-output.c .Fcons 0,42 alloc.c .noseeum_cons 0,35 alloc.c .kkcc_gc_stack_push_lisp_object_1 0,35 gc.c .recompute_funcall_allocation_flag 0,33 alloc.c .readchar 0,33 lread.c .Fmemq 0,33 fns.c .generate_fstring_runes 0,32 redisplay.c .extent_list_at 0,32 extents.c .specifier_get_inst_list 0,30 specifier.c .free_cons 0,29 alloc.c .kkcc_gc_stack_push_1 0,28 gc.c .find_symbol_value_1 0,28 symbols.c .recompute_need_to_garbage_collect 0,26 gc.c .BYTE_BUF_BYTE_ADDRESS 0,26 inline.c .extent_ancestor 0,22 inline.c .store_symval_forwarding 0,22 symbols.c .bytebpos_to_charbpos 0,19 inline.c .unbind_to_1 0,19 eval.c .Fset 0,19 symbols.c .Ffuncall 0,18 eval.c .extent_fragment_update 0,18 extents.c .unbind_to_hairy 0,18 eval.c .do_symval_forwarding 0,18 symbols.c .kkcc_bt_push 0,18 gc.c .no_conversion_convert 0,17 file-coding.c .alloc_managed_lcrecord 0,17 alloc.c .offset_post_relocation 0,17 regex.c .free_managed_lcrecord 0,17 alloc.c .malloc 0,16 gmalloc.c .lispdesc_indirect_count 0,16 inline.c .symbol_is_constant 0,15 symbols.c .add_ichar_rune 0,15 redisplay.c .compare_display_blocks 0,15 redisplay-output.c .reject_constant_symbols 0,15 symbols.c .specifier_instance_from_inst_list 0,14 specifier.c .specifier_instance_1 0,14 specifier.c Thomas Mittelstaedt schrieb: > The previous output was from an image, which I had instrumented for > gprof. Here is > the normal one: > User > Process % > ============= > ====== > /usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28.bak > 48,33 > /usr/local/bin/bash > 0,01 > > Profile: /usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28.bak > > Total % For All Processes (/usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28.bak) = 48,33 > > Subroutine % > Source > ========== ====== > ====== > .error_check_cons 3,09 > inline.c > .re_match_2_internal 2,36 > regex.c > .extent_list_locate 2,23 > extents.c > .error_check_lstream 2,16 > inline.c > .Dynarr_verify_1 1,93 > inline.c > .error_check_buffer 1,25 > inline.c > .error_check_string 0,86 > inline.c > .kkcc_marking 0,82 > gc.c > .add_ichar_rune_1 0,77 > redisplay.c > .deadbeef_memory 0,75 > alloc.c > .free_cons 0,65 > alloc.c > .readchar 0,64 > lread.c > .assq_no_quit 0,63 > fns.c > .Dynarr_verify_mod_1 0,62 > inline.c > .error_check_image_instance 0,55 > inline.c > .execute_optimized_program 0,55 > bytecode.c > .error_check_symbol 0,54 > inline.c > .noseeum_cons 0,53 > alloc.c > .BYTE_BUF_BYTE_ADDRESS_NO_VERIFY 0,52 > inline.c > .offset_post_relocation 0,46 > regex.c > .extent_list_at 0,45 > extents.c > .wrap_record_1 0,45 > inline.c > .BYTE_BUF_BYTE_ADDRESS 0,45 > inline.c > .recompute_funcall_allocation_flag 0,44 > alloc.c > .mark_object_maybe_checking_free_1 0,41 > gc.c > .compare_runes 0,40 > redisplay-output.c > .display_table_entry 0,40 > glyphs.c > .kkcc_gc_stack_push_lisp_object_1 0,40 > gc.c > .alloc_managed_lcrecord 0,37 > alloc.c > .create_text_block 0,36 > redisplay.c > .Fset 0,35 > symbols.c > .error_check_vector 0,31 > inline.c > .error_check_window 0,30 > inline.c > .generate_fstring_runes 0,30 > redisplay.c > .no_conversion_convert 0,30 > file-coding.c > .kkcc_gc_stack_push_1 0,29 > gc.c > .Fcons 0,28 > alloc.c > .recompute_need_to_garbage_collect 0,27 > gc.c > .re_search_2 0,26 > regex.c > .specifier_get_inst_list 0,26 > specifier.c > .unbind_to_hairy 0,26 > eval.c > .unbind_to_1 0,26 > eval.c > > > > Thomas Mittelstaedt schrieb: > > >> I think, I found something interesting using tprof, which I ran like the >> following: >> >> tprof -us -p xemacs-21.5-b28 -M /localbuild/xemacs-21.5.28-latest/src/ >> -x /usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28 >> >> User >> Process % >> ============= >> ====== >> /usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28 >> 60,65 >> >> Profile: /usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28 >> >> Total % For All Processes (/usr/local/bin/xemacs-21.5-b28) = 60,65 >> >> Subroutine % >> Source >> ========== ====== >> ====== >> .__mcount 22,40 >> /lib/libc/__mcount.c >> .qincrement 3,02 >> /lib/libc/__mcount.c >> .error_check_lstream 2,70 >> inline.c >> .kkcc_marking 1,68 >> gc.c >> .readchar 1,39 >> lread.c >> .error_check_cons 1,21 >> inline.c >> .extent_list_locate 1,10 >> extents.c >> .error_check_string 1,00 >> inline.c >> .no_conversion_convert 0,81 >> file-coding.c >> .__stack_pointer 0,79 _stk.s >> >> >> >> >> Thomas Mittelstaedt schrieb: >> >> >> >>> Using trace and curt, I produced another performance output, which is >>> attached. >>> Maybe it helps. >>> >>> Thomas Mittelstaedt schrieb: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Okay, I have attached the truss output with the start: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jerry James schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thomas, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for going to the effort of collecting this profiling data. It >>>>> gives us some interesting information. >>>>> >>>>> 2008/3/11 Thomas Mittelstaedt <T.Mittelstaedt(a)cadenas.de&gt;: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ngranularity: Jedes gefundene Beispiel deckt 4 Byte ab. Zeit: 97,87 Sekunden >>>>>> >>>>>> % kumulativ selbst selbst gesamt >>>>>> Zeit Sekunden Sekunden Aufrufe ms/Aufruf ms/Aufruf Name >>>>>> 0,2 0,21 0,21 .__is_wctype_sb [1] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 0,0 1,00 0,01 .xtCreate [48] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> So the top 48 time hogs together consume a grand total of 1.00 seconds >>>>> out of 97.87 seconds of execution. Your other profile was similar: >>>>> out of 56.55 seconds of execution, the top 43 collectively consumed >>>>> 0.73 seconds of execution. This indicates that the performance >>>>> problems you are seeing are not occurring in the profiled (i.e., >>>>> XEmacs) code. We appear to either be triggering a performance bug in >>>>> some library, or using some library in a suboptimal way. In either >>>>> case, this is as far as a profiler is going to take us. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still curious about the large number of kioctl calls in the truss >>>>> output you showed us earlier. Do you know why that output did not >>>>> start with the launching of the XEmacs executable? Can you get us >>>>> truss output that does start from launch? I want to know what file >>>>> descriptor is the target of all that manipulation. It may be a red >>>>> herring, but I think it's worth checking out. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> XEmacs-Beta mailing list >>>>> XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org >>>>> http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> XEmacs-Beta mailing list >>>>> XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org >>>>> http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> XEmacs-Beta mailing list >>>>> XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org >>>>> http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> XEmacs-Beta mailing list >>>>> XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org >>>>> http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> XEmacs-Beta mailing list >>>>> XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org >>>>> http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta