Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications 2009
DOI: 10.1145/1640089.1640102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inferred call path profiling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A significant amount of recent research is devoted solely to collecting unbiased edge, path, and call stack profiles [31,37,46,47], and one such paper even won the best paper award at PLDI 2009 [2]. This ostensibly simple feature should have long ago become a commodity, programmable and accessible from user space.…”
Section: A Pragmatic Propositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A significant amount of recent research is devoted solely to collecting unbiased edge, path, and call stack profiles [31,37,46,47], and one such paper even won the best paper award at PLDI 2009 [2]. This ostensibly simple feature should have long ago become a commodity, programmable and accessible from user space.…”
Section: A Pragmatic Propositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decoding is not supported in this technique. More recently, [13] uses the height of the call stack to identify calling contexts and mutates the size of stack frames to differentiate conflicting stack heights with empirically high probability. Our approach also uses the height of the call stack to disambiguate calling contexts, but in contrast, we only use it to eliminate instrumentation and path numbering where it can be shown that it is safe to do so.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the example of Figure 7(A), cache miss events generated by Method D are distributed into two paths A-B-D and A-F-D in proportion to the estimated hotnesses of the edges B-D and F-D, which we have already calculated when we built the CCT. If this uncertainty affects the overall profile too greatly, we can change the stack frame size of a method by simply adding padding in the stack frame and retry the profiling [21]. The lack of precision of the HPM interrupts in POWER6 is a more severe problem.…”
Section: Mapping Hpm Events On Calling Context Treementioning
confidence: 99%