From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <berenger@riken.jp>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 309347EE49
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:08:19 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  berenger@riken.jp) identity=pra; client-ip=134.160.33.175;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  berenger@riken.jp designates 134.160.33.175 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.160.33.175;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@postman.riken.jp designates 134.160.33.175 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=134.160.33.175;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="postmaster@postman.riken.jp";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYDAPbGKlGGoCGvmWdsb2JhbABFwUkBAwEDgSgOAQEBAQEICwsHFCeCXkA9FhgDAgECAVgIAQGID50HoCKPK4MqA4hnihWDQYV1jgY
X-IPAS-Result: AiYDAPbGKlGGoCGvmWdsb2JhbABFwUkBAwEDgSgOAQEBAQEICwsHFCeCXkA9FhgDAgECAVgIAQGID50HoCKPK4MqA4hnihWDQYV1jgY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,730,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="3311097"
Received: from postman3.riken.jp (HELO postman.riken.jp) ([134.160.33.175])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2013 03:08:17 +0100
Received: from postman.riken.jp (postman3.riken.jp [127.0.0.1])
	by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F0DD38380D3
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:08:14 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [172.27.98.103] (rikad98.riken.jp [134.160.214.98])
	by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5665F3820246
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:08:14 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <512AC78E.7070908@riken.jp>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:08:14 +0900
From: Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.0.2009776, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.2.25.20320
Subject: [Caml-list] What is triggering a lot of GC work?

Hello,

Is there a way to profile a program in order
to know which places in the source code
trigger a lot of garbage collection work?

I've seen some profiling traces of OCaml programs
of mine, sometimes the trace is very flat,
and the obvious things are only GC-related.

I think it may mean some performance-critical part
is written in a functional style and may benefit
from some more imperative style.

Regards,
F.