<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - Repeated function call gives HUGE increases to compile time"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70613#c4">Comment # 4</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - Repeated function call gives HUGE increases to compile time"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70613">bug 70613</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:eero.t.tamminen@intel.com" title="Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@intel.com>"> <span class="fn">Eero Tamminen</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=70613#c3">comment #3</a>)
<span class="quote">> (pprof) top10
> Total: 1537 samples</span >
For profiling single process doing everything on CPU side (like happens with
shader compilation) with low kernel side activity, I would recommend looking at
it with Valgrind's callgrind:
<a href="http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/cl-manual.html">http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/cl-manual.html</a>
If test program doesn't do anything extra, it's just:
valgrind --tool=callgrind <program>
Sampling profilers can miss things that Valgrind doesn't, and the callgrind
tool produces also callgraphs, which are best checked with Kcachegrind (which
is included to most distros):
<a href="http://kcachegrind.sourceforge.net/html/Home.html">http://kcachegrind.sourceforge.net/html/Home.html</a>
(Sometimes "--tool=cachegrind" output is also interesting, but I think in this
case callgraph is more.)</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>