Profiling¶
It is important to generate a profile of code performance to understand where to focus optimization efforts. The following tools have been used effectively with Python and C++ code.
Python Profiling¶
A useful guide to optimization of python code in general, and SciPy/NumPy in particular, is: http://scipy-lectures.github.io/advanced/optimizing/.
Function-level profiling¶
Consider the code in mosaic.py.
To profile it:
python -m cProfile -o cprofile-mosaic.dat `which mosaic.py` \
/data3a/work/price/SUPA-MIT/rerun/cosmos --id field=COSMOS \
filter=W-S-I+ expTime=120.0 --clobber-config
Then, in a Python session:
import pstats
p = pstats.Stats("cprofile-mosaic.dat")
p.sort_stats("cumulative").print_stats(30) # Print top 30 cumulative
The results are:
n calls (6698794 primitive calls) in 36.536 seconds
Ordered by: cumulative time
List reduced from 4671 to 30 due to restriction <30>
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
1 0.004 0.004 36.538 36.538 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/bin/mosaic.py:3(<module>)
1 0.000 0.000 34.707 34.707 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/pipe_base/HSC-2.4.1a_hsc/python/lsst/pipe/base/cmdLineTask.py:243(parseAndRun)
1 0.000 0.000 34.324 34.324 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/pipe_base/HSC-2.4.1a_hsc/python/lsst/pipe/base/cmdLineTask.py:87(run)
30 0.000 0.000 34.317 1.144 {map}
1 0.000 0.000 34.303 34.303 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:45(__call__)
1 0.073 0.073 34.303 34.303 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:1112(run)
1 0.176 0.176 34.230 34.230 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:950(mosaic)
1 2.404 2.404 25.686 25.686 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:268(readCatalog)
360 0.740 0.002 20.289 0.056 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:205(getAllForCcd)
1008 0.012 0.000 13.592 0.013 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/daf_persistence/HSC-2.1.2a_hsc/python/lsst/daf/persistence/butlerSubset.py:171(get)
1008 0.025 0.000 13.579 0.013 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/daf_persistence/HSC-2.1.2a_hsc/python/lsst/daf/persistence/butler.py:209(get)
648 0.007 0.000 12.235 0.019 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/daf_persistence/HSC-2.1.2a_hsc/python/lsst/daf/persistence/butler.py:239(<lambda>)
648 0.014 0.000 12.228 0.019 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/daf_persistence/HSC-2.1.2a_hsc/python/lsst/daf/persistence/butler.py:386(_read)
324 0.001 0.000 10.380 0.032 /home/price/hsc/afw/python/lsst/afw/table/tableLib.py:7836(readFits)
324 10.379 0.032 10.379 0.032 {_tableLib.SourceCatalog_readFits}
1 0.121 0.121 7.344 7.344 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:318(mergeCatalog)
1 0.000 0.000 6.680 6.680 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicLib.py:1400(kdtreeSource)
1 6.680 6.680 6.680 6.680 {_mosaicLib.kdtreeSource}
360 0.001 0.000 2.248 0.006 /home/price/hsc/afw/python/lsst/afw/image/imageLib.py:8635(makeWcs)
360 2.137 0.006 2.248 0.006 {_imageLib.makeWcs}
648 0.331 0.001 2.148 0.003 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:173(selectStars)
153718 0.679 0.000 1.899 0.000 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicLib.py:776(__init__)
324 0.001 0.000 1.779 0.005 /home/price/hsc/afw/python/lsst/afw/table/tableLib.py:6266(readFits)
324 1.779 0.005 1.779 0.005 {_tableLib.BaseCatalog_readFits}
2916 0.178 0.000 1.450 0.000 /home/price/hsc/afw/python/lsst/afw/table/tableLib.py:726(find)
360 0.000 0.000 1.128 0.003 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/daf_persistence/HSC-2.1.2a_hsc/python/lsst/daf/persistence/butler.py:236(<lambda>)
360 0.001 0.000 1.127 0.003 /data1a/ana/products2.1/Linux64/daf_butlerUtils/HSC-2.2.0c_hsc/python/lsst/daf/butlerUtils/cameraMapper.py:315(<lambda>)
360 0.001 0.000 1.126 0.003 /home/price/hsc/afw/python/lsst/afw/image/imageLib.py:1159(readMetadata)
360 1.126 0.003 1.126 0.003 {_imageLib.readMetadata}
1 0.004 0.004 1.036 1.036 /home/price/hsc/meas_mosaic/python/lsst/meas/mosaic/mosaicTask.py:3(<module>)
It is often most useful to look at the cumtime column, which is the time spent in that function and what it calls.
The results here show that 10/36 = 28% is being spent in readFits, but 26/36 = 72% is devoted to I/O (readCatalog).
That might suggest that some Python code should get pushed down to C++.
If you do:
p.print_callees("readCatalog")
p.print_callees("getAllForCcd")
you can see that the cumtime column doesn’t add up to the cumtime values in the above, so the remaining time is time spent within those functions doing work.
For more details on pstats and python profiling in general see http://docs.python.org/2/library/profile.html.
A potentially useful tool for visualising the results is http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/runsnakerun/.
Line profiling¶
Having found the particular function that’s consuming all the time, you may want finer granularity. For this, use line profiler. Installation is a simple matter of:
pip install line_profiler
Put an @profile decorator on the function of interest, and run:
kernprof.py -l -v /path/to/script.py <arguments>
C++ Profiling¶
igprof¶
Profiling C++ code can be done with igprof:
igprof -pp -z -o igprof-mosaic.pp.gz python `which mosaic.py` /data3a/work/price/SUPA-MIT/rerun/cosmos --id field=COSMOS filter=W-S-I+ expTime=120.0 --clobber-config
igprof-analyse -d -v -g igprof-mosaic.pp.gz > igprof-mosaic.pp.txt
That provides the cumulative profile (top) and then the caller/callee profiles further down (see http://igprof.org/text-output-format.html).
There is a fancy cgi-bin setup for browsing the profiles, but it requires setting up your Apache server.
This may or may not be worth the trouble.
Note that there is a bug in igprof (or its dependency, libunwind) that sometimes causes the process to hang.
The recommended workaround is “to make sure you have a hot cache for your libraries (cat *.so >/dev/null)”.
A slightly more complete command is
(export IFS=:; while true ; do for DIR in $LD_LIBRARY_PATH ; do find $DIR -name "*.so" -exec cat {} > /dev/null \; ; done; sleep 5; done) &
sprof¶
sprof is part of glibc, so should be available on most Linux systems.
Unlike its cousin, gprof, it does not require recompilation and it works on shared libraries, so can be used with your current stack setup, whatever that may be.
Unfortunately, it allows profiling only one shared library at a time, but generally the shared library of interest can be identified using python profiling.
Here’s an example using sprof to profile the CModel code in meas_modelfit (which is exercised by measureCoaddSources.py):
export LD_PROFILE=libmeas_modelfit.so
export LD_PROFILE_OUTPUT=`pwd`
measureCoaddSources.py /scratch/pprice/ci_hsc/DATA --rerun ci_hsc --id patch=5,4 tract=0 filter=HSC-I
sprof -p -q libmeas_modelfit.so libmeas_modelfit.so.profile > libmeas_modelfit.so.profile.txt
The output of sprof contains a cumulative profile at the top, followed by the caller/callee profiles.