2 cprof - The Call Count Profiler
cprof is a profiling tool that can be used to get a picture of how often different functions in the system are called.
cprof uses breakpoints similar to local call trace, but containing counters, to collect profiling data. Therefore there is no need for special compilation of any module to be profiled.
cprof presents all profiled modules in decreasing total call count order, and for each module presents all profiled functions also in decreasing call count order. A call count limit can be specified to filter out all functions below the limit.
Profiling is done in the following steps:
- cprof:start/0..3
- Starts profiling with zeroed call counters for specified functions by setting call count breakpoints on them.
- Mod:Fun()
- Runs the code to be profiled.
- cprof:pause/0..3
- Pauses the call counters for specified functions. This minimises the impact of code running in the background or in the shell that disturbs the profiling. Call counters are automatically paused when they "hit the ceiling" of the host machine word size. For a 32 bit host the maximum counter value is 2147483647.
- cprof:analyse/0..2
- Collects call counters and computes the result.
- cprof:restart/0..3
- Restarts the call counters from zero for specified functions. Can be used to collect a new set of counters without having to stop and start call count profiling.
- cprof:stop/0..3
- Stops profiling by removing call count breakpoints from specified functions.
Functions can be specified as either all in the system, all in one module, all arities of one function, one function, or all functions in all modules not yet loaded. As for now, BIFs cannot be call count traced.
The analysis result can either be for all modules, or for one module. In either case a call count limit can be given to filter out the functions with a call count below the limit. The all modules analysis does not contain the module cprof itself, it can only be analysed by specifying it as a single module to analyse.
Call count tracing is very lightweight compared to other forms of tracing since no trace message has to be generated. Some measurements indicates performance degradations in the vicinity of 10 percent.
The following sections show some examples of profiling with cprof. See also cprof(3).
2.1
Example: Background work
From the Erlang shell:
1> cprof:start(), cprof:pause(). % Stop counters just after start 8492 2> cprof:analyse(). {539, [{shell,155, [{{shell,prep_check,1},55}, {{shell,used_records,4},45}, {{shell,used_records,1},45}, {{shell,used_record_defs,2},1}, {{shell,record_defs,2},1}, {{shell,record_bindings,2},1}, {{shell,exprs,7},1}, {{shell,expr,4},1}, {{shell,expand_records,2},1}, {{shell,check_command,2},1}, {{shell,apply_fun,3},1}, {{shell,'-exprs/7-lc$^0/1-0-',1},1}, {{shell,'-eval_loop/3-fun-0-',3},1}]}, %% Information about many modules omitted. . . . %% Here is the last part. {erts_internal,2,[{{erts_internal,trace_pattern,3},2}]}, {otp_internal,1,[{{otp_internal,obsolete,3},1}]}, {maps,1,[{{maps,from_list,1},1}]}, {erl_internal,1,[{{erl_internal,bif,3},1}]}]} 3> cprof:analyse(cprof). {cprof,3,[{{cprof,tr,2},2},{{cprof,pause,0},1}]} 4> cprof:stop(). 8586
The example showed some of the background work that the shell performs just to interpret the first command line.
What is captured in this example is the part of the work the shell does while interpreting the command line that occurs between the actual calls to cprof:start() and cprof:analyse().
2.2
Example: One module
From the Erlang shell:
1> cprof:start(),R=calendar:day_of_the_week(1896,4,27),cprof:pause(),R. 1 2> cprof:analyse(calendar). {calendar,9, [{{calendar,last_day_of_the_month1,2},1}, {{calendar,last_day_of_the_month,2},1}, {{calendar,is_leap_year1,1},1}, {{calendar,is_leap_year,1},1}, {{calendar,dy,1},1}, {{calendar,dm,1},1}, {{calendar,df,2},1}, {{calendar,day_of_the_week,3},1}, {{calendar,date_to_gregorian_days,3},1}]} 3> cprof:stop(). 8648
The example tells us that "Aktiebolaget LM Ericsson & Co" was registered on a Monday (since the return value of the first command is 1), and that the calendar module needed 9 function calls to calculate that.
Using cprof:analyse() in this example also shows approximately the same background work as in the first example.
2.3
Example: In the code
Write a module:
-module(sort).
-export([do/1]).
do(N) ->
cprof:stop(),
cprof:start(),
do(N, []).
do(0, L) ->
R = lists:sort(L),
cprof:pause(),
R;
do(N, L) ->
do(N-1, [rand:uniform(256)-1 | L]).From the Erlang shell:
1> c(sort). {ok,sort} 2> rand:seed(default, 42), ok. ok. 3> sort:do(1000). [0,0,0,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,7,8,8|...] 4> cprof:analyse(). {13180, [{lists,6173, [{{lists,rmerge3_1,6},1045}, {{lists,rmerge3_2,6},977}, {{lists,split_1,5},652}, {{lists,merge3_1,6},579}, {{lists,merge3_2,6},577}, {{lists,rmerge3_12_3,6},511}, {{lists,split_1_1,6},347}, {{lists,merge3_12_3,6},310}, {{lists,rmerge3_21_3,6},282}, {{lists,merge3_21_3,6},221}, {{lists,merge2_1,4},154}, {{lists,merge2_2,5},138}, {{lists,reverse,2},106}, {{lists,rmerge2_2,5},87}, {{lists,rmergel,2},81}, {{lists,rmerge2_1,4},75}, {{lists,mergel,2},28}, {{lists,keyfind,3},2}, {{lists,sort,1},1}]}, {rand,5000, [{{rand,uniform_s,2},1000}, {{rand,uniform,1},1000}, {{rand,seed_put,1},1000}, {{rand,seed_get,0},1000}, {{rand,exsss_uniform,2},1000}]}, {erlang,1004, [{{erlang,put,2},1000}, {{erlang,trace_pattern,3},2}, {{erlang,ensure_tracer_module_loaded,2},2}]}, {sort,1001,[{{sort,do,2},1001}]}, {erts_internal,2,[{{erts_internal,trace_pattern,3},2}]}]} 5> cprof:stop(). 12625
The example shows some details of how lists:sort/1 works. It used 6173 function calls in the module lists to complete the work.
This time, since the shell was not involved in starting and stopping cprof, no other work was done in the system during the profiling.