From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <warrensomebody@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7638ABC58
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed,  3 Mar 2010 00:08:32 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkcCACopjUvRVdzgimdsb2JhbACRHYIQh1UIFQEBAQoJDAcRBR+uUIFehRwtiEoBAQMFhHYEgxeLHw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,569,1262559600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="45797033"
Received: from mail-fx0-f224.google.com ([209.85.220.224])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2010 00:08:31 +0100
Received: by fxm24 with SMTP id 24so1007347fxm.17
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:08:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:cc:message-id:from:to
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version
         :subject:date:references:x-mailer;
        bh=8I8zGIz1dApg60+/r9phb8/bh7pbWB187HdVv0j/vWU=;
        b=P8C/t2SfL63rSd4ZXIn9VdOuUqCivZIZymuV1Vu1qUNubsRJMtPFH7z5qSqNP/FWNe
         qN7B9vyCgOSJmjOtTBsRHepPvicnAyA/skiCuB/69KrH3CohdFqJce26Xd6FvAE1FNhL
         a/K/98WSHL01bsLSidSRp1Q789FCK84a1pA40=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=va0baFKBXorzK0UQ4Pqbyejen7xGVdM0Pv9k6JyiQdhgtASqJhNJnLfvQjVey6pPFc
         PP2jvR6P4hO5ckW0WYjDHLKAbPUTUyf8rnkWHq29ISh8keddjgoamUSzlMTW2X3bC/3R
         s+je7JXWJHtxSz+nQd59//Oj2dQly2FiRK6Y4=
Received: by 10.87.68.15 with SMTP id v15mr964717fgk.64.1267571311446;
        Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-wired-107.corp.631h.metaweb.com (nat08.metaweb.com [208.68.111.135])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm3230406fxm.7.2010.03.02.15.08.29
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:08:30 -0800 (PST)
Cc: OCaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <401ACAED-B7C3-4E3E-862E-045DEBC2A42B@gmail.com>
From: Warren Harris <warrensomebody@gmail.com>
To: Peter Hawkins <hawkinsp@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <b0b348901003021301l2d198e46vc73844c7cdbc0fb1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] gc overhead
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:08:26 -0800
References: <37150F07-8902-464A-9A0E-44A0C424C87B@gmail.com> <20100301085430.GA16106@annexia.org> <5043CED0-7CEC-4813-8325-76C3196E8FEE@gmail.com> <b0b348901003021301l2d198e46vc73844c7cdbc0fb1@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Spam: no; 0.00; gcc's:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 warren:98 warren:98 wrote:01 stack:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 gprof:03 overhead:04 overhead:04 profiling:04 profiling:04 manual:06 


On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Peter Hawkins wrote:

>
> I would have recommended using oprofile on linux, which I greatly
> prefer to GCC's built-in profiling support for profiling C programs.
> It has a low and tunable overhead, and because it's a sampling
> profiler it doesn't perturb the results anywhere near as much as
> standard profiling instrumentation.
>
> Unfortunately last time I checked it had poor OCaml support (no
> support for unwinding the OCaml call stack, so no context-sensitivity
> in the profiles). That said, you probably don't need
> context-sensitivity to determine the fraction of execution time spent
> in the GC.

Peter - gprof with ocaml works quite well: http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual031.html

Warren