Am I right to assume that the silence over a week means no specific or significant interest in getting profiling to work in the supplied performance tests?
On 14/06/2012 11:29, hp010170 wrote: > I was just wondering if someone had come across this lately; as I have > been trying to run the GNU profiling/coverage tools and also the Google > Performance Tools (gperftools), but both seem to yield the same problem: > > The library was built from master using > ./configure --with-gcov=yes CXXFLAGS='-pg' CFLAGS='-pg' > > --xx-- > hp$ ./perf/inproc_lat 10 1000000 > message size: 10 [B] > roundtrip count: 1000000 > error in zmq_recvmsg: Interrupted system call > > hp$ ./perf/inproc_lat 20 10000 > message size: 20 [B] > roundtrip count: 10000 > average latency: 39.693 [us] > > hp$ ./perf/inproc_thr 20 100000 > message size: 20 [B] > message count: 100000 > error in zmq_recvmsg: Interrupted system call > > hp$ ./perf/inproc_thr 20 10000 > message size: 20 [B] > message count: 10000 > mean throughput: 101855 [msg/s] > mean throughput: 16.297 [Mb/s] > --xx-- > > Clearly that's happening because of EINTR not being handled in the > (performance) tests, dependant upon profiling granularity. > > The 6 million dollar questions being: > > 1. Should they be handled in the perf/*.cpp files to set an example and > consequently make profiling work out of the box? > 2. Am I barking up the wrong tree? > > In case of [1], as you may know in REQ/REP examples, it is not just a > matter of retrying, since that returns EFSM due to the strict > alternating pattern; unless I have read the manual pages incorrectly. > > I would appreciate if people familiar in the relevant dark arts can shed > some light on this matter. > > -HP > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
