[bt-devel] Try profiling? (was: Windows performance issue)

[Greg Hellings]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Matthew Talbert <ransom1982 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A quick Google suggests the tool you want is called "Visual Studio
>>> Profiler" and that it is part of Visual Studio 2008.  See
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc337887.aspx for one article
>>> about it.
>>
>> That looks like it will do exactly what I need.  As soon as I'm done
>> rebuilding Qt 4.5, I'll give it a whirl (probably tomorrow, at this
>> point, unless Qt 4.5 builds incredibly faster now that I've disabled
>> examples and demos).  Thanks for finding that for me - I should have
>> seen it in front of my face the whole time!
>
> Looks to me like this tool only comes with "Team" versions of Visual
> Studio. I'd suggest AMD code analyst.

Matthew,

That seems to have done what I need.  It doesn't give the level of
detail that the version integrated with VS does (function or
line-level detail) but it does give details of which .dll/.exe/.sys
files are taking up the execution time.

I tested the system by opening BibleTime, running my mouse up and down
the Bookshelf, opening the Bible branch, opening the English Bibles
and then opening either the KJV or the ESV (I've tested with both).
Comparing the performance of the binary built against 4.4.3 with the
performance of the binary built against 4.5.0:

The 4.4.3 version spends almost all of its time in processor.sys (Idle
Processes) and other system calls which takes up about 55 seconds of
the whole process.  The top Qt/BibleTime component is QtCored4.dll
which takes 1.63 seconds over the total. libsword.dll took 1.02
seconds, and all other of our own components came in further down the
tree.

The 4.5.0 version still has processor.sys at the top with 57 seconds
of time, but now QtCored4.dll has taken 13.33 seconds, QtSvgd4.dll is
at 2.19 seconds, QtGuid4.dll at 1.95 seconds, libsword.dll still only
at 1.3 seconds and so on down the list.

In both builds, bibletime.exe takes up less than 0.01 seconds.  I ran
this across several tests and got statistically identical results each
time.

Call me a cynic, but it seems somehow Qt 4.5 on my Windows system
achieves performance far worse than I could possibly have suspected.
Anyone have ideas of where to go from here?

--Greg

>
> Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> bt-devel mailing list
> bt-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>