From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 2588 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2023 14:20:11 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Feb 2023 14:20:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 18117 invoked by uid 550); 10 Feb 2023 14:20:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 18082 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2023 14:20:07 -0000
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:19:55 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: David Wang <00107082@163.com>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <20230210141955.GA4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <CAAEi2GextYuWRK-JKtpCLxewyJ2u380m5+s=M_0P=ZBDxyX-xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CPX182QJK5D6.2Y2DE5NACZ1I@sumire>
 <4d290220.36d6.1860222ca46.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
 <20230201180115.GB2626@voyager>
 <20230209190316.GU4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <75d9cfae.35eb.1863ac4e3c0.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
 <20230210131044.GZ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <23b37232.4d4c.1863b92aa13.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23b37232.4d4c.1863b92aa13.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Re:Re: [musl] Re:Re: [musl] Re:Re: [musl] qsort

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 09:45:12PM +0800, David Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> At 2023-02-10 21:10:45, "Rich Felker" <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 06:00:27PM +0800, David Wang wrote:
> 
> >What tool was used for this? gprof or anything else invasive is not
> >meaningful; for tiny functions, the entire time measured will be the
> >profiling overhead. perf(1) is the only way I know to get meaningful
> >numbers.
> >
> >In particular, it makes no sense that significant time was spent in
> >wrapper_cmp, which looks like (i386):
> >
> >   0:   ff 64 24 0c             jmp    *0xc(%esp)
> >
> >or (x86_64):
> >
> >   0:   ff e2                   jmpq   *%rdx
> >
> >or (arm):
> >
> >   0:   4710            bx      r2
> >
> >but I can imagine it being (relatively) gigantic with a call out to
> >profiling code.
> >
> >Rich
> 
> I have myself implemented a profiling tool, using perf_event_open to
> start profiling and mmap to collect callchains, the source code is
> here
> https://github.com/zq-david-wang/linux-tools/blob/main/perf/profiler/profiler.cpp
> (Still buggy, there is always strange callchain which I could not
> figure out...and I am still working on it...)

Thanks for sharing. It's nice to see another tool like this.

> Also, I did not use any optimization when compile the code, which
> could make a difference, I will take time to give it a try .

Yes, that would make a big difference. For this to be meaninful the
measurement needs to be with optimizations.

> About wrapper_cmp, in my last profiling, there are total 931387
> samples collected, 257403 samples contain callchain ->wrapper_cmp,
> among those 257403 samples, 167410 samples contain callchain
> ->wrapper_cmp->mycmp, that is why I think there is extra overhead
> about wrapper_cmp. Maybe compiler optimization would change the
> result, and I will make further checks.

Yes. On i386 here, -O0 takes wrapper_cmp from 1 instruction to 10
instructions.

Rich