* Cost in sym vs. sym@plt
@ 2016-08-30 11:54 Milian Wolff
2016-08-31 16:51 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Milian Wolff @ 2016-08-30 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-perf-users
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1557 bytes --]
Hey all,
in one of my perf data, I see the following cost report:
Samples: 7K of event 'cycles:ppp', Event count (approx.): 6223833141
Children Self Command Shared Object Symbol
- 93.63% 28.89% lab_mandelbrot lab_mandelbrot [.] main
- 73.81% main
- 33.57% hypot
27.76% __hypot_finite
15.97% __muldc3
2.90% __muldc3@plt
2.40% QImage::height() const@plt
+ 2.14% QColor::rgb
1.94% QImage::width() const@plt
1.92% cabs@plt
How do I interpret the @plt cost? Does this really mean that 2.90% + 2.40% +
1.94% + 1.92% + ... of time is spent in the @plt stubs, which then call the
"real" non-@plt functions?
I'm asking, because I did not expect the cost of the @plt to be that large. Is
this maybe due to skid? I doubt that, since the above is from a cycles:ppp
profile on an Intel Haswell i5, which is supposedly accurate.
If on the other hand the @plt actually calls the real function opaquely
internally, then I would propose to merge the two symbols in perf reports (at
least optionally). From my POV of an application developer, the distinction
between sym and sym@plt is just adding noise, the real cost for me is the sum
of the two entries.
Any explanation on how to interpret the data would be appreciated.
Thanks
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5903 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Cost in sym vs. sym@plt
2016-08-30 11:54 Cost in sym vs. sym@plt Milian Wolff
@ 2016-08-31 16:51 ` Andi Kleen
2016-09-03 20:40 ` Milian Wolff
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2016-08-31 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: linux-perf-users
Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com> writes:
>
> I'm asking, because I did not expect the cost of the @plt to be that large. Is
> this maybe due to skid? I doubt that, since the above is from a cycles:ppp
> profile on an Intel Haswell i5, which is supposedly accurate.
There's no such thing as fully accurate profiling.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Cost in sym vs. sym@plt
2016-08-31 16:51 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2016-09-03 20:40 ` Milian Wolff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Milian Wolff @ 2016-09-03 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: linux-perf-users
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]
On Mittwoch, 31. August 2016 09:51:06 CEST Andi Kleen wrote:
> Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com> writes:
> > I'm asking, because I did not expect the cost of the @plt to be that
> > large. Is this maybe due to skid? I doubt that, since the above is from a
> > cycles:ppp profile on an Intel Haswell i5, which is supposedly accurate.
>
> There's no such thing as fully accurate profiling.
OK, so does this mean it's skid that I'm seeing here?
Thanks
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5903 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-03 20:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-08-30 11:54 Cost in sym vs. sym@plt Milian Wolff
2016-08-31 16:51 ` Andi Kleen
2016-09-03 20:40 ` Milian Wolff
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.