I'm using something like this to count how long does it takes my program from start to finish:
int main(){
clock_t startClock = clock();
.... // many codes
clock_t endClock = clock();
printf("%ld", (endClock - startClock) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
And my question is, since there are multiple process running at the same time, say if for x amount of time my process is in idle, durning that time will clock tick within my program?
So basically my concern is, say there's 1000 clock cycle passed by, but my process only uses 500 of them, will I get 500 or 1000 from (endClock - startClock)?
Thanks.
This depends on the OS. On Windows, clock() measures wall-time. On Linux/Posix, it measures the combined CPU time of all the threads.
If you want wall-time on Linux, you should use gettimeofday().
If you want CPU-time on Windows, you should use GetProcessTimes().
EDIT:
So if you're on Windows, clock() will measure idle time.
On Linux, clock() will not measure idle time.
clock on POSIX measures cpu time, but it usually has extremely poor resolution. Instead, modern programs should use clock_gettime with the CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID clock-id. This will give up to nanosecond-resolution results, and usually it's really just about that good.
As per the definition on the man page (in Linux),
The clock() function returns an approximation of processor time used
by the program.
it will try to be as accurate a possible, but as you say, some time (process switching, for example) is difficult to account to a process, so the numbers will be as accurate as possible, but not perfect.
Related
I've always used clock() to measure how much time my application took from start to finish, as;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
const clock_t START = clock();
// ...
const double T_ELAPSED = (double)(clock() - START) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
}
Since I've started using POSIX threads this seem to fail. It looks like clock() increases N times faster with N threads. As I don't know how many threads are going to be running simultaneously, this approach fails. So how can I measure how much time has passed ?
clock() measure the CPU time used by your process, not the wall-clock time. When you have multiple threads running simultaneously, you can obviously burn through CPU time much faster.
If you want to know the wall-clock execution time, you need to use an appropriate function. The only one in ANSI C is time(), which typically only has 1 second resolution.
However, as you've said you're using POSIX, that means you can use clock_gettime(), defined in time.h. The CLOCK_MONOTONIC clock in particular is the best to use for this:
struct timespec start, finish;
double elapsed;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &start);
/* ... */
clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &finish);
elapsed = (finish.tv_sec - start.tv_sec);
elapsed += (finish.tv_nsec - start.tv_nsec) / 1000000000.0;
(Note that I have done the calculation of elapsed carefully to ensure that precision is not lost when timing very short intervals).
If your OS doesn't provide CLOCK_MONOTONIC (which you can check at runtime with sysconf(_SC_MONOTONIC_CLOCK)), then you can use CLOCK_REALTIME as a fallback - but note that the latter has the disadvantage that it will generate incorrect results if the system time is changed while your process is running.
What timing resolution do you need? You could use time() from time.h for second resolution. If you need higher resolution, then you could use something more system specific. See Timer function to provide time in nano seconds using C++
I've been wanting a pause function for a while and I found this. Being a beginner in C, I can't be for sure but it looks like functions from <clock.h>.
I would like to implement this into my code, but not without understanding it.
void wait(int seconds){
clock_t start, end;
start = clock();
end = clock();
while (((end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) = !seconds)
end = clock();
}
It's just a busy-wait loop, which is a very nasty way of implementing a delay, because it pegs the CPU at 100% while doing nothing. Use sleep() instead:
#include <unistd.h>
void wait(int seconds)
{
sleep(seconds);
}
Also note that the code given in the question is buggy:
while (((end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) = !seconds)
should be:
while (((end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) != seconds)
or better still:
while (((end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) < seconds)
(but as mentioned above, you shouldn't even be using this code anyway).
Generally, clock_t is a structure in library. It returns the number of clock ticks elapsed from the program initiation till end or till you want to count the time.
If you want to know more you can read details here: http://www.tutorialspoint.com/c_standard_library/c_function_clock.htm
The clock() function returns the number of system clock cycles that have occurred since the program began execution.
Here is the prototype: clock_t clock(void);
Note that, the return value is not in seconds. To convert the result into seconds, you have to divide the return value by CLOCKS_PER_SEC macro.
You program just does this. Functionally it stops the program execution for seconds seconds (you pass this value as an argument to the wait function).
By the way, it uses time.h, not clock.h. And it is not the right point to start learning C.
To learn more: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/ctime/?kw=time.h
clock function in <ctime>:
Returns the processor time consumed by the program.
The value returned is expressed in clock ticks, which are units of
time of a constant but system-specific length (with a relation of
CLOCKS_PER_SEC clock ticks per second).
reference
So, basically it returns number of processor ticks passed since the start of the program. While the processor tick is the number of processor instructions executed by a process, it does not account for IO time and any such that does not use CPU.
CLOCKS_PER_SEC Is the average number of CPU ticks executed by machine and varies from machine to machine, even it (probably) changes time to time, because doing too much IO will cause overall decrease for each process CLOCKS_PER_SEC because more time will be spent not using CPU.
Also this statement: (end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) = !seconds
is not correct, because the right implementation is
while (((end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) != seconds)
end = clock();
Does the trick of busy waiting, program will be trapped inside this while loop until seconds seconds will be passed using CPU clocks and CLOCKS_PER_SEC to determine time passed.
Although I would suggest changing it to:
while (((end-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) < seconds)
end = clock();
Because if process has low priority, or computer is too busy handling many processes chance is one CPU tick can take more than one second (probably when system is crashed, for some buggy program who take up a lot of resources and has high enough priority to cause CPU starvation).
Finally, I do not recommend using it, because you are still using CPU while waiting which can be avoided by using sleep tools discussed here
I got the following problem: I have to measure the time a program needs to be executed. A scalar version of the program works fine with the code below, but when using OpenMP, it works on my PC, but not on the resource I am supposed to use.
In fact:
scalar program rt 34s
openmp program rt 9s
thats my pc (everything working) -compiled with visual studio
the ressource I have to use (I think Linux, compiled with gcc):
scalar program rt 9s
openmp program rt 9s (but the text pops immediately afterwards up, so it should be 0-1s)
my gues is, that it adds all ticks, which is about the same amount and devides them by the tick rate of a single core. My question is how to solve this, and if there is a better way to watch the time in the console on c.
clock_t start, stop;
double t = 0.0;
assert((start = clock()) != -1);
... code running
t = (double)(stop - start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("Run time: %f\n", t);
To augment Mark's answer: DO NOT USE clock()
clock() is an awful misunderstanding from the old computer era, who's actual implementation differs greatly from platform to platform. Behold:
on Linux, *BSD, Darwin (OS X) -- and possibly other 4.3BSD descendants -- clock() returns the processor time (not the wall-clock time!) used by the calling process, i.e. the sum of each thread's processor time;
on IRIX, AIX, Solaris -- and possibly other SysV descendants -- clock() returns the processor time (again not the wall-clock time) used by the calling process AND all its terminated child processes for which wait, system or pclose was executed;
HP-UX doesn't even seem to implement clock();
on Windows clock() returns the wall-clock time (not the processor time).
In the descriptions above processor time usually means the sum of user and system time. This could be less than the wall-clock (real) time, e.g. if the process sleeps or waits for file IO or network transfers, or it could be more than the wall-clock time, e.g. when the process has more than one thread, actively using the CPU.
Never use clock(). Use omp_get_wtime() - it exists on all platforms, supported by OpenMP, and always returns the wall-clock time.
Converting my earlier comment to an answer in the spirit of doing anything for reputation ...
Use two calls to omp_get_wtime to get the wallclock time (in seconds) between two points in your code. Note that time is measured individually on each thread, there is no synchronisation of clocks across threads.
Your problem is clock. By the C standard it measures the time passed on the CPU for your process, not wall clock time. So this is what linux does (usually they stick to the standards) and then the total CPU time for the sequential program or the parallel program are the same, as they should be.
Windows OS deviate from that, in that there clock is the wall clock time.
So use other time measurement functions. For standard C this would be time or if you need more precision with the new C11 standard you could use timespec_get, for OpenMP there are other possibilities as have already be mentioned.
I measured time with function clock() but it gave bad results. I mean it gives the same results for program with one thread and for the same program running with OpenMP with many threads. But in fact, I notice with my watch that with many threads program counts faster.
So I need some wall-clock timer...
My question is: What is better function for this issue?
clock_gettime() or mb gettimeofday() ? or mb something else?
if clock_gettime(),then with which clock? CLOCK_REALTIME or CLOCK_MONOTONIC?
using mac os x (snow leopard)
If you want wall-clock time, and clock_gettime() is available, it's a good choice. Use it with CLOCK_MONOTONIC if you're measuring intervals of time, and CLOCK_REALTIME to get the actual time of day.
CLOCK_REALTIME gives you the actual time of day, but is affected by adjustments to the system time -- so if the system time is adjusted while your program runs that will mess up measurements of intervals using it.
CLOCK_MONOTONIC doesn't give you the correct time of day, but it does count at the same rate and is immune to changes to the system time -- so it's ideal for measuring intervals, but useless when correct time of day is needed for display or for timestamps.
I think clock() counts the total CPU usage among all threads, I had this problem too...
The choice of wall-clock timing method is personal preference. I use an inline wrapper function to take time-stamps (take the difference of 2 time-stamps to time your processing). I've used floating point for convenience (units are in seconds, don't have to worry about integer overflow). With multi-threading, there are so many asynchronous events that in my opinion it doesn't make sense to time below 1 microsecond. This has worked very well for me so far :)
Whatever you choose, a wrapper is the easiest way to experiment
inline double my_clock(void) {
struct timeval t;
gettimeofday(&t, NULL);
return (1.0e-6*t.tv_usec + t.tv_sec);
}
usage:
double start_time, end_time;
start_time = my_clock();
//some multi-threaded processing
end_time = my_clock();
printf("time is %lf\n", end_time-start_time);
I know this question may have been commonly asked before, but it seems most of those questions are regarding the elapsed time (based on wall clock) of a piece of code. The elapsed time of a piece of code is unlikely equal to the actual execution time, as other processes may be executing during the elapsed time of the code of interest.
I used getrusage() to get the user time and system time of a process, and then calculate the actual execution time by (user time + system time). I am running my program on Ubuntu. Here are my questions:
How do I know the precision of getrusage()?
Are there other approaches that can provide higher precision than getrusage()?
You can check the real CPU time of a process on linux by utilizing the CPU Time functionality of the kernel:
#include <time.h>
clock_t start, end;
double cpu_time_used;
start = clock();
... /* Do the work. */
end = clock();
cpu_time_used = ((double) (end - start)) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
Source: http://www.gnu.org/s/hello/manual/libc/CPU-Time.html#CPU-Time
That way, you count the CPU ticks or the real amount of instructions worked upon by the CPU on the process, thus getting the real amount of work time.
The getrusage() function is the only standard/portable way that I know of to get "consumed CPU time".
There isn't a simple way to determine the precision of returned values. I'd be tempted to call the getrusage() once to get an initial value, and the call it repeatedly until the value/s returned are different from the initial value, and then assume the effective precision is the difference between the initial and final values. This is a hack (it would be possible for precision to be higher than this method determines, and the result should probably be considered a worst case estimate) but it's better than nothing.
I'd also be concerned about the accuracy of the values returned. Under some kernels I'd expect that a counter is incremented for whatever code happens to be running when a timer IRQ occurs; and therefore it's possible for a process to be very lucky (and continually block just before the timer IRQ occurs) or very unlucky (and unblock just before the timer IRQ occurs). In this case "lucky" could mean a CPU hog looks like it uses no CPU time, and "unlucky" could means a process that uses very little CPU time looks like a CPU hog.
For specific versions of specific kernels on specific architecture/s (potentially depending on if/when the kernel is compiled with specific configuration options in some cases), there may be higher precision alternatives that aren't portable and aren't standard...
You can use this piece of code :
#include <sys/time.h>
struct timeval start, end;
gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
.
.
.
gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
delta = ((end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec) * 1000000u +
end.tv_usec - start.tv_usec) / 1.e6;
printf("Time is : %f\n",delta);
It will show you the execution time for piece of your code