<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<page xmlns="http://projectmallard.org/1.0/" type="guide" style="task" id="massif" lang="gl">
    <info>
      <link type="guide" xref="index#massif"/>
    <credit type="translator copyright"><name>Fran Diéguez</name><email>frandieguez@gnome.org</email><years>2011-2020</years></credit></info>
      <title>Using <app>Massif</app> for Profiling Memory Use in GNOME Software</title>

    <p>Este artigo describe como usar o perfilador de pila <application>Massif</application> con aplicacións de GNOME. Describirémoslle como invocalo, interpretar e actual sobre a saída de <application>Massif</application>. Usaremos o xogo <application>Swell Foop</application> para este exemplo.</p>
   <section id="optimization-massif-TBL-intro">
        <title>Introdución</title>
        <p>
            <app>Massif</app> is a member of the <link href="http://valgrind.org/">valgrind</link> suite of memory-profiling tools. Its purpose is to give a detailed view of dynamic memory usage during the lifetime of the program. Specifically it records the memory use of the heap and the stack.
        </p>
        <p>
            The heap is the region of memory which is allocated with functions like malloc. It grows on demand and is usually the largest region of memory in a program. The stack is where all the local data for functions is stored. This includes the "automatic" variables in C and the return address for subroutines. The stack is typically a lot smaller and a lot more active than the heap. We won't consider the stack explicitly since <app>Massif</app> treats it as though it were just another part of the heap. <app>Massif</app> also gives information about how much memory is used to manage the heap.  </p>
        <p>
            <app>Massif</app> produces two output files: a graphical overview in a postscript file and a detailed breakdown in a text file.
        </p>
    </section>
    <section id="optimization-massif-TBL-using-massif">
        <title>Using <app>Massif</app> with GNOME</title>
        <p><application>Massif</application> ten varias opcións e algúns programas non as precisan. Porén para as aplicacións GNOME, a medida que baixa nos niveles da pila de chamadas os descendentes de Massif deben incrementarse. Isto pódese facer empregando o parámetro --depth. Por omisión isto é 3; incrementándoa a 5 garantizaralle que a pila de chamadas alcanza o seu código. Un ou máis niveles poden ser desexabeis para fornecerlle algún contexto ao seu código. Xa que o nivel de detalles pode ser moi rapidamente inxestionábel é mellor comezar con un valor de profundidade menos profundo e só incrementalo cando aparentemente non sexa dabondo.</p>
        <p>
            It is also useful to tell <app>Massif</app> which functions allocate memory in glib. It removes an unnecessary layer of function calls from the reports and gives you a clearer idea of what code is allocating memory. The allocating functions in glib are g_malloc, g_malloc0, g_realloc, g_try_malloc, and g_mem_chunk_alloc. You use the --alloc-fn option to tell Massif about them.
        </p>
        <p>A súa liña de orde debería semellarse a esta:</p>
        <code>
valgrind --tool=massif --depth=5  --alloc-fn=g_malloc --alloc-fn=g_realloc --alloc-fn=g_try_malloc \
         --alloc-fn=g_malloc0 --alloc-fn=g_mem_chunk_alloc swell-foop
        </code>
        <p>
            <app>Swell Foop</app> is the program we will be using as an example. Be warned that, since valgrind emulates the CPU, it will run <em>very</em> slowly. You will also need a lot of memory. </p>
    </section>
    <section id="optimization-massif-TBL-interpreting-results">
        <title>Interpretar os resultados</title>
        <p>
            The graphical output of <app>Massif</app> is largely self explanatory. Each band represents the memory allocated by one function over time. Once you identify which bands are using the most memory, usually the big thick ones at the top you will have to consult the text file for the details.
        </p>
        <p>O ficheiro de texto está ordenado como unha xerarquía por seccións, na parte superior está unha lista dos peores usuarios da memoria para reducir o espazotempo. Máis abaixo de isto están as seguintes sección, cada unha delas dividindo os resultados en maior detalle como se procedera cara abaixo na pila de chamadas. Para ilustrar isto usaremos a saída da orde de arriba.</p>
        <figure>
            <title><app>Massif</app> output for the unoptimized version of the <app>Swell Foop</app> program.</title>
            <media type="image" src="figures/massif-before.png"/>
         </figure>
        <p>
            The image above shows a typical postscript output from
            <app>Massif</app>. This is the result you would get from
            playing a single game of <app>Swell Foop</app> (version
            2.8.0) and then quitting. The postscript file will have a
            name like <file>massif.12345.ps</file> and the text file
            will be called <file>massif.12345.txt</file>. The number
            in the middle is the process ID of the program that was
            examined. If you actually try this example you will find
            two versions of each file, with slightly different
            numbers, this is because <app>Swell Foop</app> starts a
            second process and <app>Massif</app>
            follows that too. We will ignore this second process, it
            consumes very little memory.</p>
        <p>Na parte superior da gráfica vese unha gran banda amarela etiquetada como gdk_pixbuf_new. Semella un candidato ideal para a optimización, pero precisarase usar o ficheiro de texto para topar que está chamando a gdk_pixbuf_new. A parte superior do ficheiro de texto mostrará algo como o seguinte:</p>
        <code>
Command: ./swell-foop

== 0 ===========================
Heap allocation functions accounted for 90.4% of measured spacetime

Called from:
  28.8% : 0x6BF83A: gdk_pixbuf_new (in /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.400.9)

    6.1% : 0x5A32A5: g_strdup (in /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.400.6)

    5.9% : 0x510B3C: (within /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6.3.7)

    3.5% : 0x2A4A6B: __gconv_open (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.3.so)
        </code>
        <p>
            The line with the '=' signs indicates how far down the stack trace we are, in this case we are at the top. After this it lists the heaviest users of memory in order of decreasing spacetime. Spacetime is the product of the amount of memory used and how long it was used for. It corresponds to the area of the bands in the graph. This part of the file tells us what we already know: most of the spacetime is dedicated to gdk_pixbuf_new. To find out what called gdk_pixbuf_new we need to search further down the text file:
        </p>
        <code>
== 4 ===========================
Context accounted for 28.8% of measured spacetime
  0x6BF83A: gdk_pixbuf_new (in /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.400.9)
  0x3A998998: (within /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-png.so)
  0x6C2760: (within /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.400.9)
  0x6C285E: gdk_pixbuf_new_from_file (in /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0.400.9)

Called from:
  27.8% : 0x804C1A3: load_scenario (swell-foop.c:463)

    0.9% : 0x3E8095E: (within /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0.792.0)

  and 1 other insignificant place
        </code>
        <p>
            The first line tells us we are now four levels deep into the stack. Below it is a listing of the function calls that leads from here to gdk_pixbuf_new. Finally there is a list of functions that are at the next level down and call these functions. There are, of course, also entries for levels 1, 2, and 3, but this is the first level to reach right down through the GDK code to the <app>Swell Foop</app> code. From this listing, we can see instantly that the problem code is load_scenario.
        </p>
        <p>Agora que sabe que parte do código usa todo o espazo de tempo pódese buscar o porque. Resulta que load_scenario está cargando un pixbuf dun ficheiro e nunca libera esa memoria. Tendo identificado o código do problema pódese comezar a arranxalo.</p>
    </section>
    <section id="optimization-massif-TBL-acting-on-results">
        <title>Actuar sobre os resultados</title>
        <p>Reducir o consumo do espazo de tempo é bo, pero hai dúas formas de reducilo e non son iguais. Pode tanto reducir a cantidade de memoria reservada como reducir a cantidade de tempo na que está reservada. Considere por un momento un sistema modelo con só dous procesos executándose. Ámbolos dous procesos usan case toda a RAM física e superpóñense por completo polo que o sistema terá que usar a swap e todo se ralentizará. Se no lugar disto reducimos o tempo que está reservada a memoria por un factor de dous entón os dous programas poden coexistir, pero mentres os seus períodos de alto uso de memoria non se superpoñan. Polo tanto é mellor reducir o consumo de memoria reservada.</p>
        <p>
            Unfortunately, the choice of optimization is also
	    constrained by the needs of the program. The size of the
	    pixbuf data in <app>Swell Foop</app> is determined by the
	    size of the game's graphics and cannot be easily
	    reduced. However, the amount of time it spends loaded into
	    memory can be drastically reduced. The image below shows the <app>Massif</app> analysis of <app>Swell Foop</app> after being altered to dispose of the pixbufs once the images have been loaded into the X server.
        </p>
        <figure>
            <title><app>Massif</app> output for the optimized <app>Swell Foop</app> program.</title>
           <media type="image" src="figures/massif-after.png"/>
            </figure>
        <p>O uso do espazo de tempo do gdk_pixbuf_new é agora unha banda máis estreita que só ten picos moi brebes (agora é a dezaseisava banda e pintada en maxenta). Ademáis, o pico de uso de memoria baixou 200 kB xa que o pico se produce antes de que se reserve outra memoria. Se dous procesos como este estiveran executándose á vez as opcións dun pico de uso de memoria coincidente, e polo tanto o risco de facer swapping, serán moi poucas.</p>
        <p>
            Can we do better ? A quick examination of <app>Massif</app>'s text output reveals: g_strdup to be the new major offender.
        </p>
        <code>
Command: ./swell-foop

== 0 ===========================
Heap allocation functions accounted for 87.6% of measured spacetime

Called from:
    7.7% : 0x5A32A5: g_strdup (in /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.400.6)

    7.6% : 0x43BC9F: (within /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.400.9)

    6.9% : 0x510B3C: (within /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6.3.7)

    5.2% : 0x2A4A6B: __gconv_open (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.3.so)
        </code>
        <p>Se miramos máis cerca nas partes que vemos se chaman desde moitas partes.</p>
        <code>
== 1 ===========================
Context accounted for  7.7% of measured spacetime
  0x5A32A5: g_strdup (in /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.400.6)

Called from:
    1.8% : 0x8BF606: gtk_icon_source_copy (in /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.400.9)

    1.1% : 0x67AF6B: g_param_spec_internal (in /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0.400.6)

    0.9% : 0x91FCFC: (within /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.400.9)

    0.8% : 0x57EEBF: g_quark_from_string (in /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.400.6)

  and 155 other insignificant places
        </code>
        <p>Agora encárase a redución da saída para os esforzos de optimización. O gráfico suxire outra posíbel aproximación: tanto a banda «other» como a «heap admin» son bastante largas. Isto quere dicir que existen moitas pequenas reservas realizadas desde certa variedade de sitios. Eliminalos será difícil, pero se se poden agrupar, entón as reservas son individuais poden ser máis grandes e a elevada banda «heap admin» pode reducirse.</p>
    </section>
    <section id="optimization-massif-TBL-caveats">
        <title>Advertencias</title>
        <p>Existen un par de cousas para ter en conta: Primeiramente, só se informa do espazo de tempo como porcentaxe, ten que comparalo co tamaño total do programa para decidir se merece a pena perseguir a cantidade total de memoria. O gráfico, co seu eixe vertical de kilobytes, é bo para iso.</p>
        <p>
            Secondly, <app>Massif</app> only takes into account the memory used by your own program. Resources like pixmaps are stored in the X server and aren't considered by <app>Massif</app>. In the <app>Swell Foop</app> example we have actually only moved the memory consumption from client-side pixbufs to server-side pixmaps. Even though we cheated there are performance gains. Keeping the image data in the X server makes the graphics routines quicker and removes a lot of inter-process communication. Also, the pixmaps will be stored in a native graphics format which is often more compact than the 32-bit RGBA format used by gdk_pixbuf. To measure the effect of pixmaps, and other X resources use the <link href="http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xrestop">xrestop</link> program.
        </p>
    </section>
</page>
