5

What is the difference between trace-based and sampling-based profiling methods in Android Traceview ? I thought trace-based is more accurate,however, It seems like it can distort the actual cpu times especially if there are other calls with a function.

For example, I want to evaluate a function A which has two implementations such as A-1, and A-2.

  1. A-1 has one more function call, such as A-1-1.
  2. A-2 has also more function call, such as A-1-1, however, A-1-1 has also one function call inside it such as A-1-1-1.

Now I think that the trace-based profiling will report higher values for A-2 because it needs to trace one extra function A-1-1-1 and this extra cpu usage will be reported in the cpu time of A-2. Am I right ?

So the question becomes, does trace-based method take into account the cpu overhead time taken by tracing child methods when it reports the actual cpu time of a parent function?

On the other hand, the problem with sampling-based method is that it may not catch the very light-weight functions. What if my function takes 0.2 milliseconds cpu time, and sampling interval is 1 millisecond ? I did some experiments with it and it cannot catch the lightweight function calls. Any ideas or reference to documentation on their differences ?

The final question is which one is more accurate for relative comparisons ?

utengr
  • 3,225
  • 3
  • 29
  • 68

1 Answers1

10

As far as I know neither sampling method takes overhead into account.

Tracing will correctly count every single function call.

Sampling will take a snapshot of the stack with a certain frequency, which gives you an overall picture where the time is actually spent in your program.

What if my function takes 0.2 milliseconds cpu time, and sampling interval is 1 millisecond?

  • If that function runs fast and is called seldom sampling probably won't catch it. But you aren't interested in seldom called, fast functions anyway.

  • If the function is called often (say 50 times per interval) and not caught by the sampler, that means that it's never running at the point in the the sample is taken. Which means that it's fast enough.

Go for sampling and optimize by refactoring larger parts of your program, the ones that the sampler shows you. Microoptimizations on a JVM won't get you far.

Fabian Zeindl
  • 5,860
  • 8
  • 54
  • 78
  • For now, I went ahead with Tracing as it catches all the function calls doesn't matter how fast. I need it for a relative comparison of various implementations of the same function so tracing worked for me. – utengr Jan 02 '17 at 17:01
  • It it works for you, good. I never had good experiences with tracing in any language. I always ended up optimising a not so relevant part of the large system. – Fabian Zeindl Jan 03 '17 at 07:57
  • I am not using it for optimization purpose. Just for reporting, the relative cpu times for various algorithms inside a function call. For example, that algoritm A has 2% cpu utilization and B has 5%. – utengr Jan 03 '17 at 17:17