From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 A57FD7FA4D for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:38:24 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of martindemello@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.220.170; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="martindemello@gmail.com"; x-sender="martindemello@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of martindemello@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.220.170; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="martindemello@gmail.com"; x-sender="martindemello@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-vc0-f170.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.220.170; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="martindemello@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-vc0-f170.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0CAI0Z1lPRVdyqm2dsb2JhbABZhDcEgnTRRggWEAEBAQEBBgsLCRQphBwRHQEbHgMSAwYBBjcCJAERAQUBIhsaiAsBAxGJeI0IgxVqiymBcoMQigUKGScNZIYtEQEFDpI+gVEFinGQW4tyhmgYKYUaHS8 X-IPAS-Result: Ag0CAI0Z1lPRVdyqm2dsb2JhbABZhDcEgnTRRggWEAEBAQEBBgsLCRQphBwRHQEbHgMSAwYBBjcCJAERAQUBIhsaiAsBAxGJeI0IgxVqiymBcoMQigUKGScNZIYtEQEFDpI+gVEFinGQW4tyhmgYKYUaHS8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,747,1400018400"; d="scan'208";a="73043803" Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 28 Jul 2014 11:38:23 +0200 Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id lf12so10656710vcb.29 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:38:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=AgKWc1gmAYVcapeUTqfIDzsLoB27Sr22yPO/TMQ5QaM=; b=HzSyinqc4hteJlmm6XIBvm8l/nbXvQqA37xhG1bZIQixgFrEKRp1FObeLBgeHfmP7+ +0fAF0tZ8ftx7TnmllmHLXrEGt11UjKPoqqgUXyBrlrGoFDbCvBuGvvHv/ovKwGCeewa zBe08rVqVwu1vjNO8Ra2g04hWMpccuzuW9G1x5I8Gl1rZrbh1FFuuFxSdSjh4sMdyU3s TCfmte7dTgghwnB5fuvvPSH3oty9wnm0MzxsIxBw9wy9EANX3PjWpBslnQ1qrgjPRUYj 6zKCRcLiaavCxuSQ+nmElTZLI71SGySaJpyxdKfZIBrlozFCN0HJwFLSJT86qSM/ClAV hcog== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.120.38 with SMTP id kz6mr172655vdb.86.1406540301720; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.3.78 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:38:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin DeMello To: OCaml List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a04020c06c404ff3daf31 Subject: [Caml-list] profiling question about caml_apply2 --089e013a04020c06c404ff3daf31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'm profiling some code where it seems that caml_apply2 is right near the top of the gprof list % cumulative self time seconds seconds calls name 15.95 0.52 0.52 92467664 camlMutable_rack__has_letter_1031 12.27 0.92 0.40 109589844 caml_apply2 10.74 1.27 0.35 92467664 camlMutable_rack__remove_1035 8.28 1.54 0.27 2478379 camlArray__iteri_1064 7.82 1.80 0.26 32188972 camlMutable_rack__play_1040 3.99 1.93 0.13 64437854 camlTrie__fun_76276 and seems (from the call graphs later down) to be contributing towards the time taken by camlArray_iteri as well, unless I've misunderstood that bit. Is this an actual problem, or just a sign that I've optimised all the obvious bottlenecks already? martin --089e013a04020c06c404ff3daf31 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm profiling some code where it seems that caml_apply= 2 is right near the top of the gprof list

=C2=A0 % =C2=A0 cumulative =C2=A0 self =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=C2=A0time =C2=A0 seconds =C2=A0= seconds =C2=A0 =C2=A0calls =C2=A0 name =C2=A0 =C2=A0
=C2=A015.95 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00.52 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 0.52 92467664 =C2=A0 camlMutable_rack__has_letter_1031
=C2=A012.27 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= 0.92 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0.40 109589844 =C2=A0caml_apply2
=C2=A010.74 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A01.27 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 0.35 92467664 =C2=A0 camlMutable_rack__remove_1035
=C2=A0 8.28 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= 1.54 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0.27 =C2=A02478379 =C2=A0 camlArray__iteri_1064
=C2=A0 7.82 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A01.80 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0.26 32188972 =C2=A0 camlMutable_rack__play_1040
=C2=A0 3.99 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= 1.93 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0.13 64437854 =C2=A0 camlTrie__fun_76276

and seems (from the call graphs later down) to be co= ntributing towards the time taken by camlArray_iteri as well, unless I'= ve misunderstood that bit. Is this an actual problem, or just a sign that I= 've optimised all the obvious bottlenecks already?

martin
--089e013a04020c06c404ff3daf31--