Below, we will give a short example of a profiler session. See Profiling, for the documentation of the profiler functions in detail. Consider the code:
global N A; N = 300; A = rand (N, N); function xt = timesteps (steps, x0, expM) global N; if (steps == 0) xt = NA (N, 0); else xt = NA (N, steps); x1 = expM * x0; xt(:, 1) = x1; xt(:, 2 : end) = timesteps (steps - 1, x1, expM); endif endfunction function foo () global N A; initial = @(x) sin (x); x0 = (initial (linspace (0, 2 * pi, N)))'; expA = expm (A); xt = timesteps (100, x0, expA); endfunction function fib = bar (N) if (N <= 2) fib = 1; else fib = bar (N - 1) + bar (N - 2); endif endfunction
If we execute the two main functions, we get:
tic; foo; toc; ⇒ Elapsed time is 2.37338 seconds. tic; bar (20); toc; ⇒ Elapsed time is 2.04952 seconds.
But this does not give much information about where this time is spent; for instance, whether the single call to expm
is more expensive or the recursive time-stepping itself. To get a more detailed picture, we can use the profiler.
profile on; foo; profile off; data = profile ("info"); profshow (data, 10);
This prints a table like:
# Function Attr Time (s) Calls --------------------------------------------- 7 expm 1.034 1 3 binary * 0.823 117 41 binary \ 0.188 1 38 binary ^ 0.126 2 43 timesteps R 0.111 101 44 NA 0.029 101 39 binary + 0.024 8 34 norm 0.011 1 40 binary - 0.004 101 33 balance 0.003 1
The entries are the individual functions which have been executed (only the 10 most important ones), together with some information for each of them. The entries like ‘binary *’ denote operators, while other entries are ordinary functions. They include both built-ins like expm
and our own routines (for instance timesteps
). From this profile, we can immediately deduce that expm
uses up the largest proportion of the processing time, even though it is only called once. The second expensive operation is the matrix-vector product in the routine timesteps
. 6
Timing, however, is not the only information available from the profile. The attribute column shows us that timesteps
calls itself recursively. This may not be that remarkable in this example (since it’s clear anyway), but could be helpful in a more complex setting. As to the question of why is there a ‘binary \’ in the output, we can easily shed some light on that too. Note that data
is a structure array (Structure Arrays) which contains the field FunctionTable
. This stores the raw data for the profile shown. The number in the first column of the table gives the index under which the shown function can be found there. Looking up data.FunctionTable(41)
gives:
scalar structure containing the fields: FunctionName = binary \ TotalTime = 0.18765 NumCalls = 1 IsRecursive = 0 Parents = 7 Children = [](1x0)
Here we see the information from the table again, but have additional fields Parents
and Children
. Those are both arrays, which contain the indices of functions which have directly called the function in question (which is entry 7, expm
, in this case) or been called by it (no functions). Hence, the backslash operator has been used internally by expm
.
Now let’s take a look at bar
. For this, we start a fresh profiling session (profile on
does this; the old data is removed before the profiler is restarted):
profile on; bar (20); profile off; profshow (profile ("info"));
This gives:
# Function Attr Time (s) Calls ------------------------------------------------------- 1 bar R 2.091 13529 2 binary <= 0.062 13529 3 binary - 0.042 13528 4 binary + 0.023 6764 5 profile 0.000 1 8 false 0.000 1 6 nargin 0.000 1 7 binary != 0.000 1 9 __profiler_enable__ 0.000 1
Unsurprisingly, bar
is also recursive. It has been called 13,529 times in the course of recursively calculating the Fibonacci number in a suboptimal way, and most of the time was spent in bar
itself.
Finally, let’s say we want to profile the execution of both foo
and bar
together. Since we already have the run-time data collected for bar
, we can restart the profiler without clearing the existing data and collect the missing statistics about foo
. This is done by:
profile resume; foo; profile off; profshow (profile ("info"), 10);
As you can see in the table below, now we have both profiles mixed together.
# Function Attr Time (s) Calls --------------------------------------------- 1 bar R 2.091 13529 16 expm 1.122 1 12 binary * 0.798 117 46 binary \ 0.185 1 45 binary ^ 0.124 2 48 timesteps R 0.115 101 2 binary <= 0.062 13529 3 binary - 0.045 13629 4 binary + 0.041 6772 49 NA 0.036 101
We only know it is the binary multiplication operator, but fortunately this operator appears only at one place in the code and thus we know which occurrence takes so much time. If there were multiple places, we would have to use the hierarchical profile to find out the exact place which uses up the time which is not covered in this example.
© 1996–2018 John W. Eaton
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions.
https://octave.org/doc/interpreter/Profiler-Example.html