This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA 2/4] dwarf2_physname
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:17:37 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA 2/4] dwarf2_physname
- References: <4B0707E7.5010308@uglyboxes.com> <20091120220927.GA9589@caradoc.them.org> <4B1EAD5C.6060708@redhat.com> <4B2692EE.5090807@redhat.com> <m38wd1gxp6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20091217202843.GA11961@caradoc.them.org> <m3eimm7t7g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20091222192444.GB15339@caradoc.them.org> <4B576983.2090808@redhat.com>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:37:23PM -0800, Keith Seitz wrote:
> 1. time ./gdb -nx -q --batch-silent --pid $PID 2> /dev/null
> HEAD:
> real 0m20.242s 0m2.407s 0m2.418s 0m2.390s 0m2.416s
> user 0m3.565s 0m2.224s 0m2.253s 0m2.225s 0m2.240s
> sys 0m0.680s 0m0.184s 0m0.163s 0m0.165s 0m0.177s
>
> dwarf2_physname:
> real 0m3.747s 0m2.452s 0m2.447s 0m2.447s 0m2.457s
> user 0m2.293s 0m2.283s 0m2.268s 0m2.267s 0m2.272s
> sys 0m0.185s 0m0.168s 0m0.178s 0m0.178s 0m0.184s
Consistently more, but not a major impact.
> 2. time ./gdb -nx -q --batch-silent --pid $PID -ex "thread apply all
> bt full" 2> /dev/null
> HEAD:
> real 0m3.001s 0m2.422s 0m2.440s 0m2.462s 0m2.447s
> user 0m2.277s 0m2.258s 0m2.250s 0m2.261s 0m2.251s
> sys 0m0.184s 0m0.163s 0m0.189s 0m0.199s 0m0.190s
>
> dwarf2_physname:
> real 0m2.593s 0m2.502s 0m2.510s 0m2.513s 0m2.502s
> user 0m2.335s 0m2.322s 0m2.349s 0m2.321s 0m2.334s
> sys 0m0.166s 0m0.179s 0m0.160s 0m0.186s 0m0.157s
Ditto. A little bigger than previously, but still not much.
> 3. time ./gdb -nx -q --batch-silent --readnow --pid $PID 2> /dev/null
> HEAD:
> real 0m28.275s 0m10.996s 0m11.060s 0m11.035s 0m11.038s
> user 0m12.346s 0m10.378s 0m10.473s 0m10.450s 0m10.436s
> sys 0m1.082s 0m0.613s 0m0.567s 0m0.570s 0m0.583s
>
> dwarf2_physname:
> real 0m36.998s 0m17.212s 0m17.295s 0m17.304s 0m17.288s
> user 0m18.684s 0m16.502s 0m16.537s 0m16.572s 0m16.585s
> sys 0m1.188s 0m0.702s 0m0.740s 0m0.719s 0m0.689s
Not nearly as bad as I expected.
I think that this means we should move on past the speed concern for
now, and focus on any other issues in the patch. Where were we on
that front?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery