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

[Greg Hellings]

Update:

I built 4.5.1, compiled BibleTime against it.  No change - it is still
terribly slow, especially on the tree view in the Bookshelf area.

--Greg

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Martin Gruner <mg.pub at gmx.net> wrote:
>> They released 4.5.1 today. Maybe there is an improvement?
>
> And just last night I rebuilt 4.5.0 since I didn't see a new release
> on the site.  Well, off to give it a try!
>
> --Greg
>
>>
>> mg
>>
>> On Thursday 23 April 2009 18:34:13 Greg Hellings wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bt-devel mailing list
>>> bt-devel at crosswire.org
>>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bt-devel mailing list
>> bt-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>>
>