re: Poor performance when using Texas Instruments code generation tools in Wine

[Dan Kegel]

Anders wrote:
> We have been using TI code generation tools (compiler and linker) on 
> Wine, and it has worked well. However, when we started evaluating newer 
> versions of the codegen tools, the linking time was dramatically 
> increased (from 20 sec to 30 minutes...).
>
> We have done some profiling using oprofile, and found that most of this 
> time (96%) is spent in the HEAP_FindFreeBlock* *function in the ntdll 
> module. The time needed to locate a free heap block increases gradually, 
> from a few iterations up to about 15000 in the project we are building.

Wow, that's worth looking into!

Can you write a small C program that has the same behavior?
That would help us reproduce the problem and then solve it.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

Poor performance when using Texas Instruments code generation tools in Wine

[Anders Rønningen]

For starters, here is some more debug info on our case. 

oprofilres.txt shows the results we got from oprofile on ntdll.dll.so

heaptrace.tar.gz contains a WINEDEBUG=+heap trace (as recommended). It
shows that the linker allocates many small blocks, typically 0x18 bytes.
We interrupted the linking before it was complete, but you should see a
pattern...

Regards,
Anders


On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 22:32 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Anders wrote:
> > We have been using TI code generation tools (compiler and linker) on 
> > Wine, and it has worked well. However, when we started evaluating newer 
> > versions of the codegen tools, the linking time was dramatically 
> > increased (from 20 sec to 30 minutes...).
> >
> > We have done some profiling using oprofile, and found that most of this 
> > time (96%) is spent in the HEAP_FindFreeBlock* *function in the ntdll 
> > module. The time needed to locate a free heap block increases gradually, 
> > from a few iterations up to about 15000 in the project we are building.
>
> Wow, that's worth looking into!
>
> Can you write a small C program that has the same behavior?
> That would help us reproduce the problem and then solve it.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan