When programming in haskell we have the interpreter option :set +s. It prints some information about the code you ran. When on ghci, prints the time spent on running the code and the number of bytes used. when on hugs, prints the number of reductions made by the interpreter and the number of bytes used. How can I do the same thing in C ? I know how to print the time spent running my c code and how to print the number of clocks spent by the processor to run it. But what about the number of bytes and reductions ? I want to know a good way to compare two differents codes that do the same thing and compare which is the most efficient for me.
Thanks.
If you want to compare performance, just compare time and used memory. Allow both programs exploit the same number of processor cores, write equivalent programs in both language and run benchmarks. If you are using a Unix, time(1) is your friend.
Everything else is not relevant to performance. If a program performed 10x more functions calls than another one, but ran in half of the time, it is still the one having the better performance.
The benchmark game web site compares different language using time/space criteria. You may wish to follow the same spirit.
For more careful profiling of portions of the programs, rather than the whole program, you can either use a profiler (in C) or turn on the profiling options (in GHC Haskell). Criterion is also a popular Haskell library to benchmark Haskell programs. Profiling is typically useful to spot the "hot points" in the code: long-running loops, frequently called functions, etc. This is useful because it allows the programmer to know where optimization is needed. For instance, if a function cumulatively runs for 0.05s, obtaining a 10x speed increase on that is far less useful than a 5% optimization on a function cumulatively running for 20 minutes (0.045s vs 60s gain).
Related
Recently I'm programming OpenCL code which handles some images.
After completing the code, I need to benchmark OpenCL code and native C(or C++) code which does same job.
My question arouses from above. Specifically which steps should I contain to time measuring?
Majority of books and questions on StackOverflow only measures time of executing clEnqueueNDRangeKernel() with using clGetEventProfilingInfo() and clWaitForEvents().
My senior said I need to contain buffer copying jobs(C memory to cl_mem) since native C code doesn't have such steps.
Then should I contain program creating & kernel building step, argument setting step, *.cl source code file reading step, and (most curious stuff)clCreateContext() step?
According to [this paper], clCreateContext() consumes largest time compared with other steps like below.
IMAGE
Android OpenCL code example from SONY also only gets elapsed time of clEnqueueNDRangeKernel(). Check here -> developer.sonymobile.com/downloads/code-example-module/opencl-code-example/
If above is right, is it right that I should only measure the very native C code which does same job in OpenCL kernel code?
Or are there various perspective to profiling and comparing OpenCL & native C code?
PLUS: My program is going to handle continuous image (like video) so there'll be frequent memory copy between GPU and other memory. Then I should also get time for copying memory in both OpenCL code and native C code, right?
I mean, that obviously depends on what you need to measure.
Generally, if you care about the total run time of your program, measure the total runtime, including context creation.
In reality, you usually don't use openCL to do workloads that, over the whole life time of a program, take less time than the context creation. If that is the case, I'd be sure to check whether using openCL makes sense, at all. OpenCL is a single instruction, much much much data architecture. Hence, I think you might be constructing testbenches with simply too little work to be done to ever get statistically sufficient data.
For example, the timers you use to measure the time something takes to execute have some granularity, typically in the multiples of microseconds. If your workload takes shorter than let's say 500 µs, then what you're measuring is practically unusable as benchmark. This is a common problem for the performance comparison of many things!
I am running a simple C program which performs a lot calculations(CFD) hence takes a lot of time to run. However i still have a lot of unused CPU and RAM. So how will i allocate some of my processing power to one program.??
I'm guessing that CFD means Computational Fluid Dynamics (but CFD has also a lot of other meanings, so I might guess wrong).
You definitely should first profile your code. At the very least, compile it with gcc -Wall -pg -O and learn how to use gprof. You might also use strace to find out the system calls done by your code.
I'm not an expert of CFD (even if in the previous century I did work with CFD experts). But such code uses a lot of finite elements analysis and other vector computation.
If you are writing the code, you might perhaps consider using OpenMP (so by carefully adding OpenMP pragmas in your source code, you might speed it up), or even consider using GPGPUs by coding OpenCL kernels that run on the GPU.
You could also learn more about pthreads programming and change your code to use threads.
If you are using important numerical libraries like e.g. BLAS they have a lot of tuning, and even specialized variants (e.g. multi-core, OpenMP-ed, or even in OpenCL).
In all cases, parallelizing your code is a lot of work. You'll spend weeks or months on improving it, if it is possible.
Linux doesn't keep programs waiting and CPU free when they need to do calculations.
Either you have a multicore CPU and one single thread running (as suggested by #Pankrates) or you are blocking on some I/O.
You could nice the process with a negative increment, but you need to be superuser for that. See
man nice
This would increase the scheduling priority of the process. If it is competing with other processes for CPU time, it would get more CPU time and therefore "run faster".
As for increasing the amount of RAM used by the program: you'd need to rewrite or reconfigure the program to use more RAM. It is difficult to say more given the information available in the question.
To use multiple CPU's at once, you either need to run multiple copies of your program, or run multiple threads within the program. Neither is terribly hard to get started on.
However, it's much easier to do a parallel version of "I've got 10000 large numbers, I want to find out for each of them if they are primes or not" than it is to do "lots of A = A + B" type calculations in parallel - because you need the new A before you can make the next step. CFD calculations tend to do the latter [as far as I understand it], but with large arrays. You may be able to split large vector calculations into a set of smaller vector caclulations [say we have a matrix of 1000 x 1000, you could split that into 4 sets of 250 x 1000 matrixes, or 4 sets of 500 x 500 matrixes, and perform each of those in it's own thread].
If it's your own code, then you hopefully know what it does and how it works. If it's someone elses code, then you need to talk to whoever owns the code.
There is no magical way to "automatically make use of more CPU's". 30% CPU usage on a quad-core processor probably means that your system is basically using one core, and 5% or so is overhead for other things going on in the system - or maybe there is a second thread somewhere in your application that uses a little bit of CPU doing whatever it does. Or the application is multithreaded, but doesn't use the multiple cores to full extent because there is contention between the threads over some shared resource... It's impossible for us to say which of these three [or several other] alternatives.
Asking for more RAM isn't going to help unless you have something useful to put into that memory. If there is free memory, your application get as much memory as it needs.
I'm coding a little program that has to sort a large array (up to 4 million text strings). Seems like I'm doing quite well at it, since a combination of radixsort and mergesort already cut the original q(uick)sort execution time in less than half.
Execution time being the main point, since this is what I'm using to benchmark my piece of code.
My question is:
Is there a better (i. e. more reliable) way of benchmarking a program than just time the execution? It kinda works, but the same program (with the same background processes running) usually has slightly different execution times if run twice.
This kinda defeats the purpose of detecting small improvements. And several small improvements could add up to a big one...
Thanks in advance for any input!
Results:
I managed to get gprof to work under Windows (using gcc and MinGW). gcc behaves poorly (considering execution time) compared to my normal compiler (tcc), but it gave me quite some insight.
Try a profiling tool, that will also show you where the program is spending its time. gprof is the classic C profiling tool, at least on Unix.
Look at the time command. It tracks both the CPU time a process uses and the wall-clock time. You can also use something like gprof for profiling your code to find the parts of your program that are actually taking the most time. You could do a lower-tech version of profiling with timers in your code. Boost has a nice timer class, but it's easy to roll your own.
I don't think it's sufficient to just measure how long a piece of code takes to execute. Your environment is a constantly changing thing, so you have to take a statistical approach to measuring execution time.
Essentially you need to take N measurements, discard outliers, and calculate your average, median and standard deviation running time, with an uncertainty measurement.
Here's a good blog explaining why and how to do this (with code): http://blogs.perl.org/users/steffen_mueller/2010/09/your-benchmarks-suck.html
What do you use for timing execution time so far? There's C89 clock() in time.h for starters. On unixoid systems you might find getitimer() for ITIMER_VIRTUAL to measure process CPU time. See the respective manual pages for details.
You can also use a POSIX shell's times utility to benchmark the processor time used by a process and its children. The resolution is system dependent, like just anything about profiling. Try to wrap your C code in a loop, executing it as many times as necessary to reduce the "jitter" in the time the benchmarking reports.
Call your routine from a test harness, whereby it executes N + 1 times. Ignore the timing for the first iteration and then take the average of iterations 1..N. The reason for ignoring the first time is that is is often slightly inflated due to various effects, e.g. virtual memory, code being paged in, etc. The reason for averaging N iterations is that you get rid of artefacts caused by other processes, the scheduler, etc.
If you're running on Linux or similar You might also want to use taskset to pin your code to a specific CPU core (assuming it's single-threaded), ideally not core 0, since this tends to handle all interrupts.
I'm trying to find the find the relative merits of 2 small functions in C. One that adds by loop, one that adds by explicit variables. The functions are irrelevant themselves, but I'd like someone to teach me how to count cycles so as to compare the algorithms. So f1 will take 10 cycles, while f2 will take 8. That's the kind of reasoning I would like to do. No performance measurements (e.g. gprof experiments) at this point, just good old instruction counting.
Is there a good way to do this? Are there tools? Documentation? I'm writing C, compiling with gcc on an x86 architecture.
http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/
PAPI_get_real_cyc(3) - return the total number of cycles since some arbitrary starting point
Assembler instruction rdtsc (Read Time-Stamp Counter) retun in EDX:EAX registers the current CPU ticks count, started at CPU reset. If your CPU runing at 3GHz then one tick is 1/3GHz.
EDIT:
Under MS windows the API call QueryPerformanceFrequency return the number of ticks per second.
Unfortunately timing the code is as error prone as visually counting instructions and clock cycles. Be it a debugger or other tool or re-compiling the code with a re-run 10000000 times and time it kind of thing, you change where things land in the cache line, the frequency of the cache hits and misses, etc. You can mitigate some of this by adding or removing some code upstream from the module of code being tested, (to cause a few instructions added and removed changing the alignment of your program and sometimes of your data).
With experience you can develop an eye for performance by looking at the disassembly (as well as the high level code). There is no substitute for timing the code, problem is timing the code is error prone. The experience comes from many experiements and trying to fully understand why adding or removing one instruction made no or dramatic differences. Why code added or removed in a completely different unrelated area of the module under test made huge performance differences on the module under test.
As GJ has written in another answer I also recommend using the "rdtsc" instruction (rather than calling some operating system function which looks right).
I've written quite a few answers on this topic. Rdtsc allows you to calculate the elapsed clock cycles in the code's "natural" execution environment rather than having to resort to calling it ten million times which may not be feasible as not all functions are black boxes.
If you want to calculate elapsed time you might want to shut off energy-saving on the CPUs. If it's only a matter of clock cycles this is not necessary.
If you are trying to compare the performance, the easiest way is to put your algorithm in a loop and run it 1000 or 1000000 times.
Once you are running it enough times that the small differences can be seen, run time ./my_program which will give you the amount of processor time that it used.
Do this a few times to get a sampling and compare the results.
Trying to count instructions won't help you on x86 architecture. This is because different instructions can take significantly different amounts of time to execute.
I would recommend using simulators. Take a look at PTLsim it will give you the number of cycles, other than that maybe you would like to take a look at some tools to count the number of times each assembly line is executing.
Use gcc -S your_program.c. -S tells gcc to generate the assembly listing, that will be named your_program.s.
There are plenty of high performance clocks around. QueryPerformanceCounter is microsofts. The general trick is to run the function 10s of thousands of time and time how long it takes. Then divide the time taken by the number of loops. You'll find that each loop takes a slightly different length of time so this testing over multiple passes is the only way to truly find out how long it takes.
This is not really a trivial question. Let me try to explain:
There are several tools on different OS to do exactly what you want, but those tools are usually part of a bigger environment. Every instruction is translated into a certain number of cycles, depending on the CPU the compiler ran on, and the CPU the program was executed.
I can't give you a definitive answer, because I do not have enough data to pass my judgement on, but I work for IBM in the database area and we use tools to measure cycles and instructures for our code and those traces are only valid for the actual CPU the program was compiled and was running on.
Depending on the internal structure of your CPU's piplining and on the effeciency of your compiler, the resulting code will most likely still have cache misses and other areas you have to worry about. (In that case you may want to look into FDPR...)
If you want to know how many cycles your program needs to run on your CPU (which was compiled with your compiler), you have to understand how the CPU works and how the compiler generarated the code.
I'm sorry, if the answer was not sufficient enough to solve your problem at hand. You said you are using gcc on an x86 arch. I would work with getting the assembly code mapped to your CPU.
I'm sure you will find some areas, where gcc could have done a better job...
I'm doing some prototyping work in C, and I want to compare how long a program takes to complete with various small modifications.
I've been using clock; from K&R:
clock returns the processor time used by the program since the beginning of execution, or -1 if unavailable.
This seems sensible to me, and has been giving results which broadly match my expectations. But is there something better to use to see what modifications improve/worsen the efficiency of my code?
Update: I'm interested in both Windows and Linux here; something that works on both would be ideal.
Update 2: I'm less interested in profiling a complex problem than total run time/clock cycles used for a simple program from start to finish—I already know which parts of my program are slow. clock appears to fit this bill, but I don't know how vulnerable it is to, for example, other processes running in the background and chewing up processor time.
Forget time() functions, what you need is:
Valgrind!
And KCachegrind is the best gui for examining callgrind profiling stats. In the past I have ported applications to linux just so I could use these tools for profiling.
For a rough measurement of overall running time, there's time ./myprog.
But for performance measurement, you should be using a profiler. For GCC, there is gprof.
This is both assuming a Unix-ish environment. I'm sure there are similar tools for Windows, but I'm not familiar with them.
Edit: For clarification: I do advise against using any gettime() style functions in your code. Profilers have been developed over decades to do the job you are trying to do with five lines of code, and provide a much more powerful, versatile, valuable, and fool-proof way to find out where your code spends its cycles.
I've found that timing programs, and finding things to optimize, are two different problems, and for both of them I personally prefer low-tech.
For timing, the trick is to make it take long enough by wrapping a loop around it. For example, if you iterate an operation 1000 times and time it with a stopwatch, then seconds become milliseconds when you remove the loop.
For finding things to optimize, there are pieces of code (terminal instructions and function calls) that are responsible for various fractions of the time. During that time, they are exposed on the stack. So you can wrap a loop around the program to make it take long enough, and then take stackshots. The code to optimize will jump out at you.
In POSIX (e.g. on Linux), you can use gettimeofday() to get higher-precision timing values (microseconds).
In Win32, QueryPerformanceCounter() is popular.
Beware of CPU clock-changing effects, if your CPU decides to clock down during the test, results may be skewed.
If you can use POSIX functions, have a look at clock_gettime. I found an example from a quick google search on how to use it. To measure processor time taken by your program, you need to pass CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID as the first argument to clock_gettime, if your system supports it. Since clock_gettime uses struct timespec, you can probably get useful nanosecond resolution.
As others have said, for any serious profiling work, you will need to use a dedicated profiler.