Re: [Monotone-devel] net.venge.monotone.experiment.performance

[Eric Anderson]

Nathaniel Smith writes:
 > Hmm.  I _think_ you can probably do better than this with more
 > judicious use of tools.  For instance, it is easy to run callgrind on
 > a smaller work set, and you will still probably find that 30% of that
 > workset is spent doing the same thing as before.  You can also, for
 > instance, use kcachegrind to grok oprofile output.  (There is a script
 > in contrib/ that does this conversion.)

This is what I thought as well initially, but I've found that the
oprofile percentages change fairly substantially over the course of a
run of pulling the entire monotone repository; I don't know why, but
for a while I was optimizing the things that showed up in the first
part of a run and was finding they made much less difference than
expected.

 > [ oprofile, kcachegrind instrumenters ]

That should be useful.

 > And for callgrind you can do:
 > 
 >   python2.4 benchmark.py -m mtn=../opt/mtn \
 >     -b pull='InitialPull(SimpleRandomRepo(num_files=50, num_revisions=100), 
 > wait_time=20)' \
 >     -i callgrind='CallgrindInstrumenter()' \
 >     scratch results --cache cache
 > 
 > and it'll generate a relatively small data set to run callgrind on.
 > (That one'll still take a while, but definitely less than 15 hours...)
 > 
 > Well, I _think_ it will work.  You broke SimpleRandomRepo pretty good
 > with your mkrandom changes :-).  I'm not sure if I fixed stuff up
 > right; I've been getting weird errors.

What broke in it?  I ran a whole ton of tests on it, and if you didn't
build mkrandom, it should have behaved exactly the same way as before
with the arguments you're showing.

 > [ Use lots of branches, fix the UI problems that arise ]

Ok.
        -Eric