Hi Jameson, don't overdo it! Johannes' approach might really be the more sensible here!
On 03.10.21 22:06, Jameson Collins wrote: > So I haven't forgotten about this, it's just turned into more work than > expected. The > target didn't have perf, and it turns out there was a kernel bug that made it > unusable. > Fixed that, and then didn't have enough space on the ram filesystem anymore. > Fixed that > and noticed that I don't get function names, just addresses. Currently > working on that > problem. > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 1:26 PM Marcus Müller <muel...@kit.edu > <mailto:muel...@kit.edu>> > wrote: > > Hi Jameson, > > yep, and if it's not IO-bound, it's still a lot of YAML files to parse, > so it's really a nice mini-benchmark for your filesystem and python's > yaml implementation. By the way, which version of GNU Radio are you > running? > If you want to have a look into what your OS is up to while you run > grcc, I'd run `sudo perf record -a -g grcc parameters...` > > followed by `perf report`; it's not as useful to profile the Python side > of things, Johannes' method is the right one here, but in case you need > to know in which libc function or which kernel function you're stuck > most of the time: great tool! > > Best regards, > Marcus > > On 29/09/2021 14.04, Jameson Collins wrote: > > @Johannes, that's neat. I'll give that a shot. > > > > @Marcus, I can't run GRC on the target as it doesn't have X. I'm using > > grcc to generate the block, I should have mentioned that. When you say > > IO-bound I'm guessing you mean because it's scanning the disk? I > > haven't benchmarked this hardware yet, but the filesystem is a ram disk > > so I would expect it to be reasonably fast. But this is something I can > > look into. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:55 AM Marcus Müller <mmuel...@gnuradio.org > <mailto:mmuel...@gnuradio.org> > > <mailto:mmuel...@gnuradio.org <mailto:mmuel...@gnuradio.org>>> wrote: > > > > But before going into too much depth, make sure the duration isn't > just > > basically identical to clicking on the "reload block library" > button, > > which is first IO-bound (which *can* take significant amount of CPU > > time > > on weaker ARMs) and then parsing-limited. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Marcus > > > > On 9/29/21 11:21 AM, Johannes Demel wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I used: > > > https://docs.python.org/3/library/profile.html#module-cProfile > <https://docs.python.org/3/library/profile.html#module-cProfile> > > <https://docs.python.org/3/library/profile.html#module-cProfile > <https://docs.python.org/3/library/profile.html#module-cProfile>> > > > in the past to locate the problematic lines of code. > > > > > > ``` > > > import cProfile > > > import pstats > > > > > > with cProfile.Profile() as pr: > > > run_the_problematic_function_etc() > > > stats = pstats.Stats(pr) > > > stats.sort_stats('cumtime').reverse_order() > > > stats.print_stats() > > > ``` > > > You might want to adopt these lines for your use-case. I started > at > > > the top-level of my application and then gradually moved the code > > to a > > > more fitting function. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Johannes > > > > > > On 28.09.21 23:40, Jameson Collins wrote: > > >> I have a completely blank flowgraph (well just the default > > 'Options' > > >> block). > > >> > > >> On my 8 core, 2 GHz, Intel based virtual machine this flowgraph > > >> generates in under a second. > > >> > > >> On my 4 core, 1GHz, embedded ARM processor it takes 56 seconds > and > > >> completely maxes out 1 core while it's running. > > >> > > >> Why might cause this? How might I troubleshoot it? > > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
