As a part of my academic project I have to execute a C program.
I want to get the execution time of the program. For that I have to sleep all other processes in Linux for some seconds. Is there any method for doing that?
(I have tried using the time command in Linux but it is not working properly: it shows different execution time when I am executing the same program. So I am computing execution time by seeing the difference between start time and end time).
About the best way I can think of is to drop to single-user mode, which you get with
# init 1
on pretty much any distribution. This will also stop X, you'll be on a raw console. Handling interrupts from stray mouse movement is likely to be one of the reasons for whatever variability you're seeing, so that's a good thing.
When you want your full system back, init 3 is probably the one, that or init 5.
The usual way to do this is to try to quiesce the machine as much as possible, then take several measurements and average them. It's advisable to discard the first reading, as that's likely to involve population of caches.
It is impossible to get the exact time of execution of a process into a system in which the scheduler commutes from 1 process to the other.
The Intel processors inserted a register that counts the number of clocks, but even so it is impossible to measure the time.
There is a book that you can find as PDF on google, "Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective" -- In this book an whole chapter is dedicated to time measurements.
Use the time command. The sum user + sys will give you the time your programm used the CPU directly plus the time the system used the CPU on behalf of your program. I think it is what you want to know.
There will always be a difference in execution time for things no matter how many processes you shut down, polling, IO, background daemons all affect execution priority.
The academic approach would be to run a sizeable sample and take statistics, you might also want to take a look at sar to log the background. To invalidate any readings you might take
Try executing your application with nice -n 20. It may help to make the other processes quieter.
nice man page
Related
Imagine process/thread is running from point A to point B.
I can get how much time the code execution took by taking two gettimeofday() and calculating the difference (wall clock time). However, it may happen, that during the 'route' from A to B CPU was switching to another processes, to drivers, kernel, and other stuff it must perform to keep system running.
Is it possible somehow identify how much time A to B took in terms of actual process/thread execution, and kernel time related to their execution?
The goal for this exercise is to actually identify how much time CPU was NOT executing process/thread or its system calls by executing something else that them.
I am using C.
Searching the man-pages from time (1) backwards I found this:
You can use getrusage:
getrusage() returns resource usage measures
can be used for the own process (self), child processes or the calling thread.
Amongst other values it will give you the user CPU time used and the system CPU time used.
Please see man 2 getrusage for the details. (Or use an online replacement like https://linux.die.net/man/2/getrusage)
I have an assignment where I am analyzing the runtime of various sorting algorithms. I have written the code but I think it's an unfair comparison.
My code basically grabs the the clock time before and after the sorting is finished to compute the elapsed time. However, what if the OS decides to interrupt more frequently during the runtime of a specific sorting algorithm, or if it rather decides that some other background application should be given more of the time domain when it's thread comes back up?
I am not a CS major so I may not be entirely correct here, but from what I've read previously I was concerned this might have an impact on the results.
I also realize that if OS scheduling is suspended and the program hangs then there might be a serious problem; I am just wondering if it possible.
Normally, there's no real reason for it. The scheduler will slightly increase the execution time, but if the code runs for a few seconds, the change will be tiny.
So unless you're running heavy applications on the same computer, the amount of noise this will add to your tests is negligible.
In Linux, you can use isolcpus parameter to mark CPUs that won't be used by the scheduler. You can find information here. I'm not sure what's the minimal kernel version.
If you use it, you'll need to use sched_setaffinity, to put your theread on an isolated CPU, because the scheduler won't put it there.
It is not possible, not in user space code. Otherwise, any malicious process could steal the CPU from others.
If you want precise time counting for your process only, I suggest using time command. You can read about it here: What do 'real', 'user' and 'sys' mean in the output of time(1)?
Quick answer: you are most likely interested in user time, assuming your code doesn't make a heavy use of syscalls (which would be rather strange for a sorting algorithm)
On an up-to-date POSIX system (basically Linux) you can use clock_gettime with CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID or CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID if you make sure the process doesn't migrate between CPUs (you can set its affinity for example).
The difference in times returned by clock_gettime with those arguments results in exact time the process/thread spent executing. Only pitfall as I mentioned is process migration as the man page says:
The CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID and CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID clocks are realized on many platforms using timers from the CPUs (TSC on i386, AR.ITC on Itanium). These registers may differ between CPUs and as a consequence these clocks may return bogus results if a process is migrated to another CPU.
This means that you don't really need to suspend all other processes just to measure the execution time of your program.
I want to measure the execution time of a c-code segment using Linux.
I take one timestamps at the beginning of the code segment and one at the end.
But I don't know how to protect the code against IRQs and context switches to high prior tasks. The program runs in user space!
The code segment is short so don't panic hosing the system.
Does anyone know an easy solution for this kind of protection?
You can use getrusage(2) to get the CPU time used, rather than just measuring real time. That should get you the answer you want without having to resort to funny business like blocking other programs from running.
I'm using a built-in benchmarking module for some quick and dirty tests. It gives me:
CPU time
system CPU time (actually I never get any result for this with the code I'm running)
the sum of the user and system CPU times (always the same as the CPU time in my case)
the elapsed real time
I didn't even know I needed all that information.
I just want to compare two pieces of code and see which one takes longer. I know that one piece of code probably does more garbage collection than the other but I'm not sure how much of an impact it's going to have.
Any ideas which metric I should be looking at?
And, most importantly, could someone explain why the "elapsed real time" is always longer than the CPU time - what causes the lag between the two?
There are many things going on in your system other than running your Ruby code. Elapsed time is the total real time taken and should not be used for benchmarking. You want the system and user CPU times since those are the times that your process actually had the CPU.
An example, if your process:
used the CPU for one second running your code; then
used the CPU for one second running OS kernel code; then
was swapped out for seven seconds while another process ran; then
used the CPU for one more second running your code,
you would have seen:
ten seconds elapsed time,
two seconds user time,
one second system time,
three seconds total CPU time.
The three seconds is what you need to worry about, since the ten depends entirely upon the vagaries of the process scheduling.
Multitasking operating system, stalls while waiting for I/O, and other moments when you code is not actively working.
You don't want to totally discount clock-on-the-wall time. Time used to wait w/o another thread ready to utilize CPU cycles may make one piece of code less desirable than another. One set of code may take some more CPU time, but, employ multi-threading to dominate over the other code in the real world. Depends on requirements and specifics. My point is ... use all metrics available to you to make your decision.
Also, as a good practice, if you want to compare two pieces of code you should be running as few extraneous processes as possible.
It may also be the case that the CPU time when your code is executing is not counted.
The extreme example is a real-time system where the timer triggers some activity which is always shorter than a timer tick. Then the CPU time for that activity may never be counted (depending on how the OS does the accounting).
Given a C process that runs at the highest priority that requests the current time, Is the time returned adjusted for the amount of time the code takes to return to the user process space? Is it out of date when you get it? As a measurement taking the execution time of known number of assembly instructions in a loop and asking for the time before and after it could give you an approximation of the error. I know this must be an issue in scientific applications? I don't plan to write software involving any super colliders any time in the near future. I have read a few articles on the subject but they do not indicate that any correction is made to make the time given to you be slightly ahead of the time the system read in. Should I lose sleep over other things?
Yes, they are almost definitely "wrong".
For Windows, the timing functions do not take into account the time it takes to transition back to user mode. Even if this were taken into account, it can't correct if the function returns, and your code hits a page fault/gets swapped out/etc., before capturing the return value.
In general, when timing things you should snap a start and an end time around a large number of iterations to weed out these sort of uncertainties.
No, you should not lose sleep over this. No amount of adjustment or other software trickery will yield perfect results on a system with a pipelined processor with multi-layered memory access running a multi-tasking operating system with memory management, devices, interrupt handlers... Not even if your process has the highest priority.
Plus, taking the difference of two such times will cancel out the constant overhead, anyway.
Edit: I mean yes, you should lose sleep over other things :).
Yes, the answer you get will be off by a certain (smallish) amount; I have never heard of a timer function compensating for the average return time, because such a thing is nearly impossible to predict well. Such things are usually implemented by simply reading a register in the hardware and returning the value, or a version of it scaled to the appropriate timescale.
That said, I wouldn't lose sleep over this. The accepted way of keeping this overhead from affecting your measurements in any significant way is not to use these timers for short events. Usually, you will time several hundred, thousand, or million executions of the same thing, and divide by the number of executions to estimate the average time. Such a thing is usually more useful than timing a single instance, as it takes into account average cache behavior, OS effects, and so forth.
Most of the real world problems involving high resolution timers are used for profiling, in which the time is read once during START, and once more during FINISH. So most of the times ~almost~ the same amount of delay in involved in both START and FINISH. And hence it works fine.
Now, for nuclear reactors, WINDOWS or for that many other operating system with generic functions may not be suitable. I guess they use REAL TIME operating systems which might give a better accurate time values than desktop operating systems.